User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 10:08:14 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So the girls created and distributed child porn. Now they are the victims somehow? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 10:22:25 AM EDT
[#2]
Quit treating 16 year olds like children and maybe they will quit acting like children.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 10:40:34 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As they should be. Implication of the OP is that it's okay for the recipients to share the photos with whoever they want. It's not. When you send or receive naked pics, there's an implicit agreement to keep them to yourself. The recipient certainly doesn't have the right to send them out to others. Now, in this case, is it smart to send photos to teenage boys and expect them to stay private? Not necessarily. But that doesn't make the actions of the boys right. In the case of the boy who just received the pictures and didn't send them out, should he be shipped off to the alternative school for 30 days? Fuck no. Should both the boys and girls who did send pictures to others be punished equally? Fuck yes. THIS THIS THIS THIS RIGHT HERE THIS. Are the girls dumbasses? Yes. Are they little empty-headed dipshits? YES. Are the boys who shared the photos also dumbasses? YES. Are they acting in a dishonorable way by sharing the photos? Absolutely yes. Just because you think she's a dumb bimbo, doesn't mean it's right (or legal) to share her nudie photos. It's a shit move to SHARE nude photos someone sends to you. Use some common sense. The girls were dumbasses just in general principle for taking nude photos of themselves and sharing them. But that doesn't mean that the boys that shared the photos are off the hook. Punish them equally. The boys who received the photos but didn't share them are not to blame for anything. It's the little shitheads who shared them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 10:44:34 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you are an expert of Implied-in-fact contract law? Go look at B&o rr v United States (1923 I believe.) There was no meeting of the minds and one could easily argue that there is no expectation of privacy when you create electronic data for transmission without express written terms. So if she has OMG don't share it, and he says ok, then we get into other legal theory. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As they should be. Implication of the OP is that it's okay for the recipients to share the photos with whoever they want. It's not. When you send or receive naked pics, there's an implicit agreement to keep them to yourself. The recipient certainly doesn't have the right to send them out to others. Now, in this case, is it smart to send photos to teenage boys and expect them to stay private? Not necessarily. But that doesn't make the actions of the boys right. In the case of the boy who just received the pictures and didn't send them out, should he be shipped off to the alternative school for 30 days? Fuck no. Should both the boys and girls who did send pictures to others be punished equally? Fuck yes. So you are an expert of Implied-in-fact contract law? Go look at B&o rr v United States (1923 I believe.) There was no meeting of the minds and one could easily argue that there is no expectation of privacy when you create electronic data for transmission without express written terms. So if she has OMG don't share it, and he says ok, then we get into other legal theory. Nope nope nope. The girls took the photos. The girls own the copyright to the photos. They are THEIR photos. They don't "become" the property of anyone who receives the photos, and as such the recipients can do anything with the photos as they see fit. No, they can't. If someone sends me an email talking about all sorts of personal, intimate details of their life, and I do a "cc" and send it to everyone in my address book, am I not an asshole for doing that? Common sense says yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:00:53 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still have all the nude pics from all of my girlfriends.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/lhz-k5bXpKopGiF5lQN1lcHG_BhZA-Mo5EUKqH22Sgiq6-GrChmP8JkFCnetmEyXnaldOvhAYXmzcEG1YAzdlBIvmaSEEz-HvCRYUb9k5XdKojVRxZX5G9nOR0mbZA=w647-h404-nc  Courtesy Public Service Announcement
Do not Google images of blisters to use with Photoshop for a "FIFY" response.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:04:37 AM EDT
[#6]
Wish we had cell phones back in the early 80's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:08:38 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I said it before and I'll say it again; Teenage girls are the dumbest people on earth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:08:55 AM EDT
[#8]
You'd think with all the sex ed classes they have in school they would take a few minutes to explain underage sex and porn laws and the plan stupidity of sending nude photos.
Oh yeah, even if they did do that it still requires personal responsibility on the teens part, something that against school policy these days.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:23:09 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: According to the article, only if the people who share are over 18. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Actions have consequences. Stupid beotches. I wonder if sharing those images is child pron? That makes each boy who shared it in deep doo doo.According to the article, only if the people who share are over 18. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:28:31 AM EDT
[#10]
This happened locally and the wife of the investigating cop is a friend.
Bottom line, if your son gets a nude photo sent to him, (by the girl) he's committed no crime, but should delete it.
Once he forwards it, it's child porn trafficking. (and like it or not, there's no other way to look at it). I believe the article also says as much...the school is the one who overstepped the law, here...unless something in their Code of Conduct can hang those kids (on a school level). But I fail to see how receiving an UNSOLICITED text can result in any allegations of criminal activity. So, I dunno what you're all a-twitter about, but bottom line, so long as the boys didn't forward it, they have not broken the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:30:39 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I said it before and I'll say it again; Teenage girls are the dumbest people on earth. Which is the only way teenage boys could ever get laid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:31:54 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I said it before and I'll say it again; Teenage girls are the dumbest people on earth. I have always said that you can have the smartest teenager on the planet but get them together with their friends and their collective IQ would not be high enough to get them in out of the rain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:38:35 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This happened locally and the wife of the investigating cop is a friend. Bottom line, if your son gets a nude photo sent to him, (by the girl) he's committed no crime, but should delete it. Once he forwards it, it's child porn trafficking. (and like it or not, there's no other way to look at it). I believe the article also says as much...the school is the one who overstepped the law, here...unless something in their Code of Conduct can hang those kids (on a school level). But I fail to see how receiving an UNSOLICITED text can result in any allegations of criminal activity. So, I dunno what you're all a-twitter about, but bottom line, so long as the boys didn't forward it, they have not broken the law. Because under federal law if you don't immediately delete the image you are guilty of a felony. If you send the image to anyone you are guilty of a felony. If the image is posted on a website and you visit the website you are guilty of a felony. Frankly, I think the Fed. has gone full retard, but you can't discuss the issue because any objection is met with "OMG I KNOW YOU ARE A PEDO AND SHOULD BE KILLED NOW!!!!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:40:16 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This happened locally and the wife of the investigating cop is a friend. Bottom line, if your son gets a nude photo sent to him, (by the girl) he's committed no crime, but should delete it. Once he forwards it, it's child porn trafficking. (and like it or not, there's no other way to look at it). I believe the article also says as much...the school is the one who overstepped the law, here...unless something in their Code of Conduct can hang those kids (on a school level). But I fail to see how receiving an UNSOLICITED text can result in any allegations of criminal activity. So, I dunno what you're all a-twitter about, but bottom line, so long as the boys didn't forward it, they have not broken the law. Because under federal law if you don't immediately delete the image you are guilty of a felony. If you send the image to anyone you are guilty of a felony. If the image is posted on a website and you visit the website you are guilty of a felony. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:40:33 AM EDT
[#15]
They are fucking idiots who should have known this would happen but even so they have every right to be mad about it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:40:35 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, I dunno what you're all a-twitter about, but bottom line, so long as the boys didn't forward it, they have not broken the law. Because unless the "news" story has the details wrong, the boy who did nothing but receive the photo in question is being punished for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:43:53 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope nope nope. The girls took the photos. The girls own the copyright to the photos. They are THEIR photos. They don't "become" the property of anyone who receives the photos, and as such the recipients can do anything with the photos as they see fit. No, they can't. If someone sends me an email talking about all sorts of personal, intimate details of their life, and I do a "cc" and send it to everyone in my address book, am I not an asshole for doing that? Common sense says yes. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So you are an expert of Implied-in-fact contract law? Go look at B&o rr v United States (1923 I believe.) There was no meeting of the minds and one could easily argue that there is no expectation of privacy when you create electronic data for transmission without express written terms. So if she has OMG don't share it, and he says ok, then we get into other legal theory. Nope nope nope. The girls took the photos. The girls own the copyright to the photos. They are THEIR photos. They don't "become" the property of anyone who receives the photos, and as such the recipients can do anything with the photos as they see fit. No, they can't. If someone sends me an email talking about all sorts of personal, intimate details of their life, and I do a "cc" and send it to everyone in my address book, am I not an asshole for doing that? Common sense says yes. Regardless of whether or not it was ethically or morally wrong to forward the pictures, it can still be legal. The laws on privacy are a lot more difficult to satisfy than you think. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:44:18 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because unless the "news" story has the details wrong, the boy who did nothing but receive the photo in question is being punished for it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So, I dunno what you're all a-twitter about, but bottom line, so long as the boys didn't forward it, they have not broken the law. Because unless the "news" story has the details wrong, the boy who did nothing but receive the photo in question is being punished for it. ETA: According to Klein ISD, "There is an ongoing investigation at Klein Oak High School regarding inappropriate student photos that were shown and or forwarded while on campus. Klein ISD will take appropriate disciplinary action for any students who are found to have violated the student code of conduct." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:51:17 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Incorrect under federal law. The feds have taken the position that anyone who even looks at an image inadvertently is guilty of a felony. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Actions have consequences. Stupid beotches. I wonder if sharing those images is child pron? That makes each boy who shared it in deep doo doo.According to the article, only if the people who share are over 18. That is what i thought too, it wouldn't surprise me if the media screwed it up. Something else to keep in mind, if the girls are minors and a boy who forwards those pictures is 18, the boy could be charged with child pornography. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 12:18:38 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuote HistorySomething else to keep in mind, if the girls are minors and a boy who forwards those pictures is 18, the boy could be charged with child pornography. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 1:17:08 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is also incorrect. "Close in age" applies to age of consent laws, not CP laws. Technically, you could be lawfully married to your 17 year old wife but charged with felony CP for taking a naked picture of her. Quote HistoryQuoted: Something else to keep in mind, if the girls are minors and a boy who forwards those pictures is 18, the boy could be charged with child pornography. So...what have we learned, class? We've learned that porn is best when the pics are of girls OVER the age of 18. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 1:24:10 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dumbasses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 1:59:32 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I said it before and I'll say it again; Teenage girls are the dumbest people on earth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 2:00:59 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And idiots will be idiots. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sluts will be sluts |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 2:04:57 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: this just in, teenage girls do stupid things If anyone was to be punished it would be everyone who SENT photos which would be the original girls and any recipients who passed it on
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 2:07:40 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As they should be. Implication of the OP is that it's okay for the recipients to share the photos with whoever they want. It's not. When you send or receive naked pics, there's an implicit agreement to keep them to yourself. The recipient certainly doesn't have the right to send them out to others. Now, in this case, is it smart to send photos to teenage boys and expect them to stay private? Not necessarily. But that doesn't make the actions of the boys right. In the case of the boy who just received the pictures and didn't send them out, should he be shipped off to the alternative school for 30 days? Fuck no. Should both the boys and girls who did send pictures to others be punished equally? Fuck yes. Sending them on makes the senders callous jerks, or in laymans terms teenage boys, but that doesn't change the fact that no implicit agreement exist regarding nudies or really anything you send
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 2:08:32 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Semantics...point IS distribution is a crime. So...what have we learned, class? We've learned that porn is best when the pics are of girls OVER the age of 18. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Something else to keep in mind, if the girls are minors and a boy who forwards those pictures is 18, the boy could be charged with child pornography. So...what have we learned, class? We've learned that porn is best when the pics are of girls OVER the age of 18. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 2:13:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope nope nope. The girls took the photos. The girls own the copyright to the photos. They are THEIR photos. They don't "become" the property of anyone who receives the photos, and as such the recipients can do anything with the photos as they see fit. No, they can't. If someone sends me an email talking about all sorts of personal, intimate details of their life, and I do a "cc" and send it to everyone in my address book, am I not an asshole for doing that? Common sense says yes. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: As they should be. Implication of the OP is that it's okay for the recipients to share the photos with whoever they want. It's not. When you send or receive naked pics, there's an implicit agreement to keep them to yourself. The recipient certainly doesn't have the right to send them out to others. Now, in this case, is it smart to send photos to teenage boys and expect them to stay private? Not necessarily. But that doesn't make the actions of the boys right. In the case of the boy who just received the pictures and didn't send them out, should he be shipped off to the alternative school for 30 days? Fuck no. Should both the boys and girls who did send pictures to others be punished equally? Fuck yes. So you are an expert of Implied-in-fact contract law? Go look at B&o rr v United States (1923 I believe.) There was no meeting of the minds and one could easily argue that there is no expectation of privacy when you create electronic data for transmission without express written terms. So if she has OMG don't share it, and he says ok, then we get into other legal theory. Nope nope nope. The girls took the photos. The girls own the copyright to the photos. They are THEIR photos. They don't "become" the property of anyone who receives the photos, and as such the recipients can do anything with the photos as they see fit. No, they can't. If someone sends me an email talking about all sorts of personal, intimate details of their life, and I do a "cc" and send it to everyone in my address book, am I not an asshole for doing that? Common sense says yes. you like to swing around 'common sense' telling you to not resend stuff sent to you, well common sense actually starts with 'don't send crap out that you don't want spread, and/or to people you don't trust in the extreme' Regarding the 'copyright' of a selfie...unless the people who re-send the photos are SELLING those photos, the fact that the photographer 'owns' the copyright is true but irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 2:27:43 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Semantics...point IS distribution is a crime. So...what have we learned, class? We've learned that porn is best when the pics are of girls OVER the age of 18. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 2:43:12 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the article... "...the motto was THINK before you Post on Social Media. Is it True?, Is it Helpful?, Is it Inspiring?, Is it Necessary?, Is it Kind?" Then I thought of GD and laughed... Reported 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 2:55:38 PM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 3:05:36 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there is being an asshole and then there is doing something that can get you officially punished. you like to swing around 'common sense' telling you to not resend stuff sent to you, well common sense actually starts with 'don't send crap out that you don't want spread, and/or to people you don't trust in the extreme' Regarding the 'copyright' of a selfie...unless the people who re-send the photos are SELLING those photos, the fact that the photographer 'owns' the copyright is true but irrelevant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As they should be. Implication of the OP is that it's okay for the recipients to share the photos with whoever they want. It's not. When you send or receive naked pics, there's an implicit agreement to keep them to yourself. The recipient certainly doesn't have the right to send them out to others. Now, in this case, is it smart to send photos to teenage boys and expect them to stay private? Not necessarily. But that doesn't make the actions of the boys right. In the case of the boy who just received the pictures and didn't send them out, should he be shipped off to the alternative school for 30 days? Fuck no. Should both the boys and girls who did send pictures to others be punished equally? Fuck yes. So you are an expert of Implied-in-fact contract law? Go look at B&o rr v United States (1923 I believe.) There was no meeting of the minds and one could easily argue that there is no expectation of privacy when you create electronic data for transmission without express written terms. So if she has OMG don't share it, and he says ok, then we get into other legal theory. Nope nope nope. The girls took the photos. The girls own the copyright to the photos. They are THEIR photos. They don't "become" the property of anyone who receives the photos, and as such the recipients can do anything with the photos as they see fit. No, they can't. If someone sends me an email talking about all sorts of personal, intimate details of their life, and I do a "cc" and send it to everyone in my address book, am I not an asshole for doing that? Common sense says yes. you like to swing around 'common sense' telling you to not resend stuff sent to you, well common sense actually starts with 'don't send crap out that you don't want spread, and/or to people you don't trust in the extreme' Regarding the 'copyright' of a selfie...unless the people who re-send the photos are SELLING those photos, the fact that the photographer 'owns' the copyright is true but irrelevant. The boys should be punished for being assholes. I guess the school can do that under their "code of conduct" rules. The girls are being punished for being dumbasses. (At the least, they are suffering great embarrassment by the boys sharing their photos, but I think the school should punish them too.) Yes, common sense dictates that you never trust teenaged boys (or anyone, really) with your intimate photos. But then again, I guess if you live by the rule that you trust no one, that no one would ever send nudies to their boyfriends or husbands. Ever. 
But yes, the girls are dumbasses. The boys are assholes. I think both should be punished. It's not just about the girls being sluts and getting what they deserve. The boys deserve to be punished for being assholes as well. Some guys here think that all the "blame" falls on the heads of the girls, and when the boys shared the photos, oh well, "boys will be boys." No, the boys should be accountable too. If the girls must "pay" for their "crimes," why not the boys too? As for copyright, you don't have to sell something in order for it to be a copyright violation. I'm pretty sure that if I shared a mass email of an e-book (that I bought) to all my friends, even though I didn't charge a penny to anyone, that it would not be legal under copyright law. Yeah, here I found a cite: "You could violate federal copyright law if: Somebody emails copyrighted material to you and, in turn, you forward it to one or more friends." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 3:19:36 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the article... "...the motto was THINK before you Post on Social Media. Is it True?, Is it Helpful?, Is it Inspiring?, Is it Necessary?, Is it Kind?" Then I thought of GD and laughed... Good Point... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 6:08:18 PM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 6:09:59 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the girls created and distributed child porn. Now they are the victims somehow? Excellent. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 10:49:54 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope nope nope. The girls took the photos. The girls own the copyright to the photos. They are THEIR photos. They don't "become" the property of anyone who receives the photos, and as such the recipients can do anything with the photos as they see fit. No, they can't. If someone sends me an email talking about all sorts of personal, intimate details of their life, and I do a "cc" and send it to everyone in my address book, am I not an asshole for doing that? Common sense says yes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As they should be. Implication of the OP is that it's okay for the recipients to share the photos with whoever they want. It's not. When you send or receive naked pics, there's an implicit agreement to keep them to yourself. The recipient certainly doesn't have the right to send them out to others. Now, in this case, is it smart to send photos to teenage boys and expect them to stay private? Not necessarily. But that doesn't make the actions of the boys right. In the case of the boy who just received the pictures and didn't send them out, should he be shipped off to the alternative school for 30 days? Fuck no. Should both the boys and girls who did send pictures to others be punished equally? Fuck yes. So you are an expert of Implied-in-fact contract law? Go look at B&o rr v United States (1923 I believe.) There was no meeting of the minds and one could easily argue that there is no expectation of privacy when you create electronic data for transmission without express written terms. So if she has OMG don't share it, and he says ok, then we get into other legal theory. Nope nope nope. The girls took the photos. The girls own the copyright to the photos. They are THEIR photos. They don't "become" the property of anyone who receives the photos, and as such the recipients can do anything with the photos as they see fit. No, they can't. If someone sends me an email talking about all sorts of personal, intimate details of their life, and I do a "cc" and send it to everyone in my address book, am I not an asshole for doing that? Common sense says yes. Being an asshole still has nothing to do with implied-in-fact contract and because there was no financial gain I seriously doubt the teen boys are worried about a copyright infringement suit 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:20:20 PM EDT
[#37]
Can't fix Stupid...those pictures are now out there forever....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:23:53 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Being an asshole still has nothing to do with implied-in-fact contract and because there was no financial gain I seriously doubt the teen boys are worried about a copyright infringement suit I don't think they're in any danger of being sued for copyright infringement either. But as I said before (and gave a link backing this up in my previous post) financial gain has nothing to with it. If you don't have legal rights to share someone else's copyrighted material, you are in violation if you do so. Not only are you an asshole, you have no legal right. If all you have to do in order to escape being guilty of copyright violation is say, "But I wasn't making any money," try to share a Disney movie for free on your own website, and see how well that works out. 
Not only do we have the copyright issue (these girls are endowed with copyright ownership of these photos upon creation of the photos) we also have privacy issues and the risk of them being underage. Even if you think the girls are stupid whores, it doesn't necessarily mean that they deserve to have their photos shared with everyone, because "boys will be boys," and the girls 'should have known' that the little apes would share the photos. Besides, it sounds like the school can "punish" the students if they violate the school's "code of conduct." I think that the girls who sent the photos and the boys who shared the photos equally are deserving of some punishment for being idiots and assholes. I don't think the boys who simply received the photos are deserving of punishment, however. Edited: http://www.rightsforartists.com/copyright.html: "Is email copyrighted? Yes it is. The original author of an email letter holds the copyright on that email and that email is protected under the same laws as a physical letter. So unless the author has granted permission for the email to be reprinted or it is being reprinted under the conditions of fair use, the reproduction, forwarding, copying or modifying an email is copyright infringement." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:29:08 AM EDT
[#39]
iirc, it takes more than just being nekkid and under 18 to = CP. the images must also involve sexually explicit conduct
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide/citizensguide_porn.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:37:28 AM EDT
[#40]
if they can send nudes of themselves, why can't everyone else send nudes of the same girls? If someone over 18 sends them it's child porn. Penalty should be the same either slap on the wrist or jail
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:46:10 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think they're in any danger of being sued for copyright infringement either. But as I said before (and gave a link backing this up in my previous post) financial gain has nothing to with it. If you don't have legal rights to share someone else's copyrighted material, you are in violation if you do so. Not only are you an asshole, you have no legal right. If all you have to do in order to escape being guilty of copyright violation is say, "But I wasn't making any money," try to share a Disney movie for free on your own website, and see how well that works out.
Not only do we have the copyright issue (these girls are endowed with copyright ownership of these photos upon creation of the photos) we also have privacy issues and the risk of them being underage. Even if you think the girls are stupid whores, it doesn't necessarily mean that they deserve to have their photos shared with everyone, because "boys will be boys," and the girls 'should have known' that the little apes would share the photos. Besides, it sounds like the school can "punish" the students if they violate the school's "code of conduct." I think that the girls who sent the photos and the boys who shared the photos equally are deserving of some punishment for being idiots and assholes. I don't think the boys who simply received the photos are deserving of punishment, however. Edited: http://www.rightsforartists.com/copyright.html: "Is email copyrighted? Yes it is. The original author of an email letter holds the copyright on that email and that email is protected under the same laws as a physical letter. So unless the author has granted permission for the email to be reprinted or it is being reprinted under the conditions of fair use, the reproduction, forwarding, copying or modifying an email is copyright infringement." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Being an asshole still has nothing to do with implied-in-fact contract and because there was no financial gain I seriously doubt the teen boys are worried about a copyright infringement suit I don't think they're in any danger of being sued for copyright infringement either. But as I said before (and gave a link backing this up in my previous post) financial gain has nothing to with it. If you don't have legal rights to share someone else's copyrighted material, you are in violation if you do so. Not only are you an asshole, you have no legal right. If all you have to do in order to escape being guilty of copyright violation is say, "But I wasn't making any money," try to share a Disney movie for free on your own website, and see how well that works out.
Not only do we have the copyright issue (these girls are endowed with copyright ownership of these photos upon creation of the photos) we also have privacy issues and the risk of them being underage. Even if you think the girls are stupid whores, it doesn't necessarily mean that they deserve to have their photos shared with everyone, because "boys will be boys," and the girls 'should have known' that the little apes would share the photos. Besides, it sounds like the school can "punish" the students if they violate the school's "code of conduct." I think that the girls who sent the photos and the boys who shared the photos equally are deserving of some punishment for being idiots and assholes. I don't think the boys who simply received the photos are deserving of punishment, however. Edited: http://www.rightsforartists.com/copyright.html: "Is email copyrighted? Yes it is. The original author of an email letter holds the copyright on that email and that email is protected under the same laws as a physical letter. So unless the author has granted permission for the email to be reprinted or it is being reprinted under the conditions of fair use, the reproduction, forwarding, copying or modifying an email is copyright infringement." Is your screen name Spanish for crazy cat lady? Until I see case law of somebody winning in a federal court on these arguments (for sending personal data, sending a patent idea, etc Mather you closer to an actual case) then I think your argument is a little out in left field for the context in OP. Full disclosure I read less than five words in your above reply but I was afraid reading all that would make my Scotch taste like shit |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:54:44 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is your screen name Spanish for crazy cat lady? Until I see case law of somebody winning in a federal court on these arguments (for sending personal data, sending a patent idea, etc Mather you closer to an actual case) then I think your argument is a little out in left field for the context in OP. Full disclosure I read less than five words in your above reply but I was afraid reading all that would make my Scotch taste like shit I said that I didn't think anyone would be sued for forwarding the email. It's possible, but very unlikely. Others have tried to claim that there was no legal foundation in which to claim that the boys had no legal right to share the photos. I think there is and I've given links backing that up. The girls own the copyright to the photos. It's a copyright violation to forward someone else's content via email. Therefore, the boys have no legal right. Is that simple enough for you?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 9:30:57 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So...what have we learned, class? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Semantics...point IS distribution is a crime. So...what have we learned, class? We've learned that porn is best when the pics are of girls OVER the age of 18.  My initial post was a reaction to all the repressed persecution-type replies. It's getting sooo old. The guys winging at every turn how hard it is to be a man and all...this case is not one of male persecution. It's one of teen stupidity. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
