There’s an amusement here

A US judge has awarded $13m in damages to 22 women who were defrauded by the owners of GirlsDoPorn, a website specialising in “amateur”-style pornography.

Contractually they’re probably right. They were promised the porn wouldn’t go online, it did, bang to rights.

The amusement rather coming from the underlying claim they’re making. Which seems to be that doing porn is just fine as long as no one knows about it. Which might even be the normal human reaction but still. You have actually gone and done the act, haven’t you?

48 thoughts on “There’s an amusement here”

  1. If you read the full story, the journo Bianca Bruna gets in a lovely little plug for herself. So everyone’s happy.

  2. Why is it it difficult to understand? Just because you film yourself for a small private circle doesn’t mean you want the whole world to see. These women had their lives screwed up, and my sympathies are with them.

  3. Well, Mr D, they were paid to have sex. Money changed hands. Now they’re getting even more money to reflect among other things the true commercial value of their work as well as the damage to their reputations of it. I think Tom skewered it: it’s OK to be a sex worker if no one knows about it?

    I mean, fine. Live and let live. But what did they expect, societal praise and offers of marriage from eligible men? That their parents would be proud?

  4. @Hector

    To an extent. But it’s like those women who send pics to their boyfriend (only more so). There’s enough precedent that someone is foolish in the extreme to expect that such activities will always remain contained.

    Did the girls ask if the ‘private circle’ might include their parents? Or someone else they know? Or a potential future employer? Or a potential future rival at work or in politics?

    What’s the old politician’s advice? Everything you do, imagine what it would look like as a front page tabloid splash.

    I’m just glad all my debauchery and foolishness took place years before the internet.

  5. Incidentally, in countries where it’s illegal to pay a prostitute, it’s legal to pay a porn actress.

    So make a film of your visit.

  6. It seems to me that when an avowed classical Liberal such as Tim comes across something that excites his typically English sense of prurient shame about human sexuality, those Liberal values shatter.

    I’m with Mr Drummond here against the Puritans

  7. These women had their lives screwed up, and my sympathies are with them.

    Pounded In The Butt By My Own Poor Life Choices

  8. It’s just not what a gentleman would do, is it? Obviously, filming ladies innocently getting ejaculated on by a series of strangers is perfectly OK. But sending pictures of it to all and sundry is the action of a cad.

  9. @ Mr Womby

    “I’m struggling to find the point of porn that you’re not allowed to view….”


  10. GirlsDoPorn stole their honor.

    Which is worth a half-million. Had they negligently killed them, it would have only be a million.

    I don’t contest their winning, I contest the amount. Give ’em 50,000 each.

  11. “I don’t contest their winning, I contest the amount. Give ’em 50,000 each.”

    After the lawyers have chewed over the award they’ll be lucky to get 50k each.

  12. I’ve no problem with someone choosing to do porn.

    I do have a problem with someone lying to a participant about where it will be used.

    However, I won’t be hiring in future a student lawyer who was gullible enough to think that her video would never end up on the internet.

  13. Surely there is someone out there who will offer to horse whip the owners of GirlsDoPorn and put it on YouTube

  14. “sir, you are a scoundrel who has impugned the honour of this defenceless young, er, lady of easy virtue. I call you out, and I intend to run you through”

  15. Here’s another amusement – a headline in the Groan.

    “David Lammy rules himself out of Labour leadership race”

    You gorra laugh. Anyway, for the avoidance of doubt: Dearieme rules himself out of Labour leadership race.

  16. The “college girls” were told that the videos of them doing the nasty would go straight to DVD which would be sold to punters in Australia and New Zealand. And it never occurred to any of the Janes that there would be nothing to stop any of the purchasers uploading the video to the internet?

    OK – so the organizers cut out the middleman by uploading the videos themselves. Definite breach of contract. But it is truly astonishing that “college girls” could be so naïve and have such little understanding of the real world.

    The next lesson those now not-so-young women are going to learn is that it is one thing to get a California judge to issue a favorable ruling — it is an entirely different matter to get that ruling enforced, especially against someone on the other side of the world who has probably already changed his name. And they are going to find out that their lawyers want to get paid, one way or another.

  17. Foolish of these women to imagine their antics would be contained. Just foolish.

    Do they deserve money–if the contract was in writing and explicit–no pun intended–and the terms have been violated then yes they do. If not–then no.

  18. @ Gavin Longmuir
    Young, probably naive, girls of probably slightly-less-than-average intelligence conned by some devious crooks. The brighter girls would find ways of filling their pockets (most of them would have well-off parents because intelligence is, to some extent, hereditary).
    I think the girls are a bit stupid and have loose/millennial morals but the exploiters are EVIL.

  19. So Mr Lud doesn’t believe in penalties for breach of contract…. No surprise there, what colour and whose kimono does he wear when committing his crimes?

  20. You’ve lost me, Diogenes.

    From what do you infer I don’t support, well, ‘penalties’ is perhaps not quite the right word, but anyway. Let’s just call it ‘money’?

    And on what basis are you not surprised?

    My crimes?


  21. Off topic but Spud has admitted ‘much reduced income’ and has put out the begging bowl on his blog.

    A few of his toadies have offered £2 a month.

    Wonder how much it’d cost for him to agree to STFU?

  22. John77: “Young, probably naive, girls …”

    John, they were not “girls” — they were “women”. Adults. And women are STRONG, as they keep reminding us. That is why we put women in charge of businesses and make them Prime Ministers and such.

    Those women were in charge of their own bodies, and of their own free will charged money to perform sex acts with strangers in front of a camera. And now they are playing the poor weak defenseless girl act in order to get more money. Maybe those women are naïve, or maybe they are calculating?

    We are in a part of town where no-one has “Clean Hands’, so to speak. If we are going to call out people for being EVIL, let’s start with the Leftists and Feminists who deprive young girls of moral education and fill their heads with the nonsense that they can do anything they want with no consequences, because they are female.

  23. @ Gavin Longmuir
    Start where you like – I’ll agree that those choosing to deprive girls of moral education is a good place – but the liars on “GirlsDo Porn” should be included before you finish. as should all those who want to swamp the younger generation with mind-altering and/or addictive drugs.

  24. If all these assholes had done was upload the videos, nothing probably would have come of it. However:

    Anonymous emails were sent to their families, universities and friends, linking them to the videos.

    This removed all the incentive for the girls to keep their mouths shut about it and virtually invited this lawsuit. Not very smart of our creepy porn entrepreneurs.

  25. @Andrew C
    off-topic also – but reading Murph I actually feel sorry for him somewhat – a 60 yr old chartered accountant asking for money – how can he not have a reasonable pension pot? There is actually a charity supporting chartered accountants in difficulty – CABA.
    He also refers to an ill wife so I guess we should cut him some slack.

  26. “Anonymous emails were sent to their families, universities and friends, linking them to the videos.”

    This is where my spidey-sense starts to tingle. The Antipodean porn entrepreneur in California would have wanted to see ID from the women to make sure they were over 18, so he knew real names and could probably link them to their families. Porn guy was specifically looking for college women, so he could probably link them to their universities. But how would he have linked them to their “friends”, and got the appropriate e-mail addresses so that he could send those anonymous e-mails? And what benefit does it bring to the creepy porn entrepreneurs to spend so much time tracking down addresses and sending anonymous e-mails?

    I could imagine a confidant or lawyer advising one of the young women to send anonymous e-mails to strengthen her claim for compensation. And how did 22 young women from different colleges all end up with the same lawyer? Maybe I am being too suspicious, but it would not be surprising if there was more to this story than we are being told.

  27. Isn’t the point that, putting aside the law of contract, both the men and the women in their different ways are deserving of criticism, or of condescension – but that, in the law of contract, only the men get the sucker punch?

    I don’t have a problem with the kick in the goolies they’re getting.

    But equally I don’t see why the young ladeez of easy virtue should have that same virtue papered-over as if they were virginal.

    I’d need some persuading that their anonymity is merited.

    Both sides are what they are, and this is no place for white knighting.

  28. As is typical for the internet, I’m going to wade in without knowing diddly squat about the case.

    What I will say is that what young person in this day and age expects anything of this nature to stay private for very long?

    As storage gets ever cheaper and A.I. gets ever better there is little chance of young people ever having true privacy ever again in the future.

  29. @swiss Toni

    Stammer talked about the Green New Deal in his leadership pitch so no doubt Spud’s wars will have peeled up and he will be sniffing around

  30. @Swiss Toni

    Meh. She’s an ex-wife. His second. Probably left him because he’s an annoying bumptious twatish ego-maniac. No slack.

  31. What about the mens? Did they have the same contract as the wimmins? Wouldn’t they be equally harmed by the alleged breech of contract?

  32. Isn’t this a fairly standard line? Girl is reluctant because of reputation, but happy to take the money for the act. The convincing lie is that ‘no one you know will see it!’

    At the end of the day, this is all a negotiation over price. We know the girls were up for it, but the producer got a lower price because of their claim of a restricted market. When that was revealed as not being true, the girls got to renegotiate the price!

    Of course said girls were foolish to be believing a porn producer, but waving a thousand or two dollars at naive women tends to lower their inhibitions somewhat.

  33. RichardT

    “So next, will the customers be able to sue because they “amateurs” won’t be really?”

    Now that’s an interesting follow up court case. Producer sues ‘actresses’ because getting half a million each makes them very clearly top professionals, not cheeky amateurs! Their market value was only as credible amateurs…..

  34. john77

    “Young, probably naive, girls of probably slightly-less-than-average intelligence conned by some devious crooks. The brighter girls would find ways of filling their pockets (most of them would have well-off parents because intelligence is, to some extent, hereditary).
    I think the girls are a bit stupid and have loose/millennial morals but the exploiters are EVIL.”

    I’m curious to know how you get to evil? This is nothing more than a ‘Of course I’ll love you in the morning’ an age old dance.

    You could make the case that it’s the girls who have done the exploiting, they after all were taking the money. Instagram girls re shameless about their exploitation of their thirsty followers, the main difference here is the middle man.

    It’s a clear breach of contract, but not much else. The payout is base on it being some moral outrage, which is it not.

  35. @Mr Lud, BlokeInBrum +1

    Re: Pcar January 4, 2020 at 8:49 pm

    Picked a small one (~240mb) at random

    Girl interviewed in hotel room “I’m studying Aero-Space Engineering at… want NASA” (not drunk, drugged, high). Then with two guys (with large cocks): deep throat oral, vaginal, anal – all very explicit clear video

    Did nothing for me; ffwd/jump most.

    Summary: A young attractive prostitute spends time with two well endowed blokes

    Sue the men? No, the girls willingly sold their bodies, they’ve grown up in FaceTwat world and know anonymity leaks; more fool them

    Now where’s the tiny violin?

    @David Moore


  36. Pcar: “Summary: A young attractive prostitute spends time with two well endowed blokes.”

    Did you think those guys were well endowed?

    (Ok, sorry — It is a joke. I could not resist!)

    Re your accurate summary, it raises all sorts of interesting legal questions:
    Is prostitution legal in California? If not, have the women admitted to committing a crime?
    Is it prostitution if the woman is paid by the film-maker rather than by the well endowed gentlemen actually doing the deed(s)?
    If a woman crosses State lines to do a sex act in front of a camera in California, is she committing a Federal sex-trafficking offense?
    California permits the making of “adult” movies, but (surprise!) has strict regulations, such as the use of condoms. Did the women comply with all those regulations?

    Practically speaking, the women were probably thinking about the Kim Kardashian business model, where her sex tape garnered the publicity which sprang her into the ranks of the very rich. If these women’s tapes just did not spark enough public interest, then maybe a court case was another way of raising their profiles?

  37. @Gavin

    Endowed/hung: looked 9″ length x 1.5″ dia – didn’t noticeably grow when engorged

    Condoms: none used

    Blokes: faces not shown

    Girl: not bimbo/trailer-trash, no reason to doubt uni-student

    Interesting point on girl’s actions making her a criminal/felon

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *