AMC TV Exec found uploading gay porn to torrent sites

[snortingfrogs]

Even TV Exec pirates porn, not just us average joe's

 

Porn producer Flava Works is going toe to toe with Marc Juris, President & General Manager of AMC-owned WE tv. Unusually in such cases, Juris sued Flava Works first, after the company approached him with an offer to settle, which would have kept his identity a secret. With that no longer an option, the battle lines are being drawn.

 

“We identified him directly, this was done by cross referencing all his IP logins with Flava Works, his email addresses he used and his usernames. We can confirm that he is/was a member of Gay-Torrents.org and Gayheaven.org. We also believe (we will find out in discovery) that he is a member of a Russian file sharing site called GayTorrent.Ru,” he says.

 

https://torrentfreak.com/porn-producer-says-hell-prove-that-amc-tv-exec-is-a-bittorrent-pirate-170818/

[vorticalbox]

Quote

Your thread must include some original input to tell the reader why it is relevant to them, and what your personal opinion on the topic is. This needs to be MORE than just a quick, single comment to meet the posting guidelines

 

but on the thread. What is the problem here that he likes gay porn or that he torrents? If it's the latter then how is what he torrents relevant to the case?

 

 

[captain_to_fire]

Also, this is more of an off topic thing or better yet, a status update

[Froody129]

19 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

 

but on the thread. What is the problem here that he likes gay porn or that he torrents? If it's the latter then how is what he torrents relevant to the case?

 

 

Because he's stealing someone else's work. I think the producer was hoping for a nice settlement because the guy is but more high profile

 

OP: I really don't see how this is relevant to Tech News... 

[snortingfrogs]

19 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

 

but on the thread. What is the problem here that he likes gay porn or that he torrents? If it's the latter then how is what he torrents relevant to the case?

 

 

 

Because it's the content he uploaded to various torrent sites, and that's what he is getting sued for.

If he had uploaded Movies, TV Shows or anything else it would have been mentioned as well.

 

By uploading this content he essentially is saying that his content from AMC is worth more than Flava's.

[dalekphalm]

Here's my take:

 

1. The fact that it's gay porn - who gives a shit? I don't know if he's gay or straight or bi, and I really don't care at all. That's his business, not mine.

2. The fact that he downloaded copyrighted material from a website (presumably behind a paywall) and then proceeded to upload that material to a torrent site is a problem. I don't condone piracy, but I CAN understand downloading pirated material. Uploading willfully (as in, creating and seeding your own torrent) is a totally different matter, and I'm 100% okay with legal punishment.

3. The fact that they keep mentioning all the "gay porn" parts makes me think that they're gonna try and "shame" him into settling or try to ruin his public image.

4. If he's guilty, it'll most likely come out during the court case. But just because an IP Address associated with him was used, does not make him guilty. Could have been a friend, family member, guest, hacked WIFI, spoofed IP Address, or even a total mistake by the porn media company.

 

We don't know whether he's guilty or not, so let's not assume he is without overwhelming evidence.

 

Let's let the court decide!

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

Want to get someone fired from their job and humiliated? Social media is your friend.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

Want to get someone fired from their job and humiliated? Social media is your friend.

Assuming he's not guilty, he won't get fired.

 

Know why? Because if they did fire him for that, it would be the biggest payday of his entire life after he sued the fuck out of AMC for homophobic discrimination from being fired because he was involved with Gay Porn.

 

With that in mind: If he's guilty, they can simply fire him for breaking the law.

[JAKEBAB]

Lmao those site names!

[PlayStation 2]

12 minutes ago, JAKEBAB said:

Lmao those site names!

Gay porn site names are just cheesy.

[mr moose]

I am pretty sure in US law there is precedent that an IP is not an identifier.   I doubt they have any chance of winning and that's why they are trying to shame (or punish) him into confessing/paying up.    I don't condone piracy, but if these guys had a genuine case, they lost my support when they tried to use being gay as a form of public shame.

 

 

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I am pretty sure in US law there is precedent that an IP is not an identifier.   I doubt they have any chance of winning and that's why they are trying to shame (or punish) him into confessing/paying up.    I don't condone piracy, but if these guys had a genuine case, they lost my support when they tried to use being gay as a form of public shame.

 

 

I agree. Even if he is guilty, that should be between him and the courts.

[Donut417]

13 hours ago, vorticalbox said:

 

but on the thread. What is the problem here that he likes gay porn or that he torrents? If it's the latter then how is what he torrents relevant to the case?

 

 

The issue is porn is copy right protected like AMC content. So hes breaking the law. But when an exec breaks the law no one bats an eye. When a private lowly citizen breaks the law they go bat shit crazy. 

[Misanthrope]

3 hours ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

Want to get someone fired from their job and humiliated? 

Not for gay porn no, that's just homophobia. This "scandal" would work just as well as "Hypocrite AMC exec uploads copyrighted adult material"

 

No stigmas, no shaming, just the facts that are actually pertinent to moral outrage.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Not for gay porn no, that's just homophobia. This "scandal" would work just as well as "Hypocrite AMC exec uploads copyrighted adult material"

 

No stigmas, no shaming, just the facts that are actually pertinent to moral outrage.

And that's why I have issues with the plaintiff,   Not because it's piracy or some misguided judgment on morals, but simply because the attack is on being gay and is clearly motivated by something else and the case won't stand on it's own merits.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

47 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Not for gay porn no, that's just homophobia. This "scandal" would work just as well as "Hypocrite AMC exec uploads copyrighted adult material"

 

No stigmas, no shaming, just the facts that are actually pertinent to moral outrage.

I don't get all this "don't ask, don't tell" attitude towards this case. When someone is sued for pirating music, movies, TV shows, etc, that is not reported as "citizen X sued for pirating undisclosed copyright-protected content". I have no problem accepting that what exactly you pirate doesn't matter, it's just a question of whether it's subject to copyright or not, but I don't see this particular case as being especially revealing. It's reported the same way every other case is, as far as I can see.

 

To some extent, I think we are projecting a bit when we stop so much at the fact that it was gay porn: it's not the lawsuit or the reporting that emphasizes it as much as it is us focusing on it, whether they mention or they don't mention, etc. "Media executive pirates Game of Thrones" or "Media executive pirate gay porn" shouldn't be treated differently, and if we react in harmful ways only because of the content, then it is us, not the companies enforcing their copyright, who are to blame. I mean, you are even proposing the alternate headline "Hypocrite AMC exec uploads copyrighted adult material", while you could argue that mentioning "adult material" carries a stigma / shaming load as well - in the end, it is you, not the headline, who sees "adult" as OK and "gay porn" as shaming/stigmatizing. Not to mention that the specific sites used to distribute the material would be mentioned one way or another.

I also would like to stress that this is not about his private life: for all we know, he could not be interested in the content at all, and just engaged in its illegal distribution to make money out of advertising or whatever (if, let's say, he was running some of those sites). In other words: what is being made public are not private aspects of his life, but his public pirate activity.

 

If you ask me, what makes this news-worthy is the fact that the accused party is an executive at a company who could be on the suing side of this sort of cases.

[snortingfrogs]

31 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I don't get all this "don't ask, don't tell" attitude towards this case. When someone is sued for pirating music, movies, TV shows, etc, that is not reported as "citizen X sued for pirating undisclosed copyright-protected content". I have no problem accepting that what exactly you pirate doesn't matter, it's just a question of whether it's subject to copyright or not, but I don't see this particular case as being especially revealing. It's reported the same way every other case is, as far as I can see.

 

To some extent, I think we are projecting a bit when we stop so much at the fact that it was gay porn: it's not the lawsuit or the reporting that emphasizes it as much as it is us focusing on it, whether they mention or they don't mention, etc. "Media executive pirates Game of Thrones" or "Media executive pirate gay porn" shouldn't be treated differently, and if we react in harmful ways only because of the content, then it is us, not the companies enforcing their copyright, who are to blame. I mean, you are even proposing the alternate headline "Hypocrite AMC exec uploads copyrighted adult material", while you could argue that mentioning "adult material" carries a stigma / shaming load as well - in the end, it is you, not the headline, who sees "adult" as OK and "gay porn" as shaming/stigmatizing. Not to mention that the specific sites used to distribute the material would be mentioned one way or another.

I also would like to stress that this is not about his private life: for all we know, he could not be interested in the content at all, and just engaged in its illegal distribution to make money out of advertising or whatever (if, let's say, he was running some of those sites). In other words: what is being made public are not private aspects of his life, but his public pirate activity.

 

If you ask me, what makes this news-worthy is the fact that the accused party is an executive at a company who could be on the suing side of this sort of cases.

Couldn't have said it better myself, excellent post.

[dalekphalm]

54 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I don't get all this "don't ask, don't tell" attitude towards this case. When someone is sued for pirating music, movies, TV shows, etc, that is not reported as "citizen X sued for pirating undisclosed copyright-protected content". I have no problem accepting that what exactly you pirate doesn't matter, it's just a question of whether it's subject to copyright or not, but I don't see this particular case as being especially revealing. It's reported the same way every other case is, as far as I can see.

 

To some extent, I think we are projecting a bit when we stop so much at the fact that it was gay porn: it's not the lawsuit or the reporting that emphasizes it as much as it is us focusing on it, whether they mention or they don't mention, etc. "Media executive pirates Game of Thrones" or "Media executive pirate gay porn" shouldn't be treated differently, and if we react in harmful ways only because of the content, then it is us, not the companies enforcing their copyright, who are to blame. I mean, you are even proposing the alternate headline "Hypocrite AMC exec uploads copyrighted adult material", while you could argue that mentioning "adult material" carries a stigma / shaming load as well - in the end, it is you, not the headline, who sees "adult" as OK and "gay porn" as shaming/stigmatizing. Not to mention that the specific sites used to distribute the material would be mentioned one way or another.

I also would like to stress that this is not about his private life: for all we know, he could not be interested in the content at all, and just engaged in its illegal distribution to make money out of advertising or whatever (if, let's say, he was running some of those sites). In other words: what is being made public are not private aspects of his life, but his public pirate activity.

 

If you ask me, what makes this news-worthy is the fact that the accused party is an executive at a company who could be on the suing side of this sort of cases.

Here's the problem - whether he's gay or not, now everyone (including literally everyone he knows) is going to assume he is.

 

Is that a problem? It shouldn't be, but we all know that homophobia still exists in America (not to mention other parts of the world).

 

Yes there is still shaming/stigmatizing for porn in general and for piracy/breaking the law in general, but not to the same degree.

 

I would LOVE for his sexual orientation to not matter at all, but the fact that it's gay porn will undoubtedly have a negative impact.

 

Plus, Flava Works (the guy suing him) appears to be using the fact that it's gay porn as a weapon. Even going as far as to speculate that he's a member of another gay porn site.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Here's the problem - whether he's gay or not, now everyone (including literally everyone he knows) is going to assume he is.

 

Is that a problem? It shouldn't be, but we all know that homophobia still exists in America (not to mention other parts of the world).

 

Yes there is still shaming/stigmatizing for porn in general and for piracy/breaking the law in general, but not to the same degree.

 

I would LOVE for his sexual orientation to not matter at all, but the fact that it's gay porn will undoubtedly have a negative impact.

I can see that happening, but I don't see it as a consequence of a particularly indiscreet reporting, but rather as a side effect of normal reporting. Now, if you think certain cases should have a specific treatment, more filtered than other cases, that would be a different debate. Although the problem would be that whenever we see missing information, people would start assuming things. I don't see an easy solution.

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Plus, Flava Works (the guy suing him) appears to be using the fact that it's gay porn as a weapon. Even going as far as to speculate that he's a member of another gay porn site.

To be honest, I didn't see this clearly from OP. It would certainly be reprehensible, if confirmed. I guess it boils down to whether the settlement was offered in a, let's call it "standard" way, or was meant as a threat (i.e., whether rather than an opportunity to settle things discreetly, it was a veiled threat to make things very indiscreet). In the latter case, given his job, I think the threat would be as much as exposing the content as exposing the fact itself (I would expect a media company to force out a copyright-infringing executive even if not proven, if made public enough, although the gay porn thing could end up shielding him due to the possibility to claim discrimination, at least until sentenced).

I also wonder whether doxing him at certain sites could be a necessary part of the piracy accusation, or it's just plain prove of the intent to shame-pressure him. 

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I don't get all this "don't ask, don't tell" attitude towards this case. When someone is sued for pirating music, movies, TV shows, etc, that is not reported as "citizen X sued for pirating undisclosed copyright-protected content". I have no problem accepting that what exactly you pirate doesn't matter, it's just a question of whether it's subject to copyright or not, but I don't see this particular case as being especially revealing. It's reported the same way every other case is, as far as I can see.

 

To some extent, I think we are projecting a bit when we stop so much at the fact that it was gay porn: it's not the lawsuit or the reporting that emphasizes it as much as it is us focusing on it, whether they mention or they don't mention, etc. "Media executive pirates Game of Thrones" or "Media executive pirate gay porn" shouldn't be treated differently, and if we react in harmful ways only because of the content, then it is us, not the companies enforcing their copyright, who are to blame. I mean, you are even proposing the alternate headline "Hypocrite AMC exec uploads copyrighted adult material", while you could argue that mentioning "adult material" carries a stigma / shaming load as well - in the end, it is you, not the headline, who sees "adult" as OK and "gay porn" as shaming/stigmatizing. Not to mention that the specific sites used to distribute the material would be mentioned one way or another.

I also would like to stress that this is not about his private life: for all we know, he could not be interested in the content at all, and just engaged in its illegal distribution to make money out of advertising or whatever (if, let's say, he was running some of those sites). In other words: what is being made public are not private aspects of his life, but his public pirate activity.

 

If you ask me, what makes this news-worthy is the fact that the accused party is an executive at a company who could be on the suing side of this sort of cases.

1) I didn't said "undisclosed content" I said adult content. You can even say porn. Unless the porn in question is illegal like child porn, the actual type porn is kind of immaterial

 

2) I didn't bring up the lawsuit I was merely commenting on the original post and some of the responses, not the lawsuit itself. Yes the lawsuit should absolutely every detail on what kind of content and all.

 

3) It is being news worthy that the accused works on the other side of these cases. Is not big news if the specific content he was pirating happens to be gay. Anybody can look at whatever kind of legal porn they want to.

 

When one describes the thread and some of the comments as "He was uploading gay porn" however it does has a connotation: it implies that anybody who watches gay porn does it in secret or that it is somehow wrong to watch gay porn. We've seen the memes about gay porn, traps, etc. There's still quite a bit of shaming to go around so don't act as if I was pointing this out of nowhere cause that's clearly not the case.

[KuJoe]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

I am pretty sure in US law there is precedent that an IP is not an identifier.

But they mentioned his e-mail address and I can attest first hand that an e-mail is enough to help link somebody's identity in the eyes of the law (at least in a federal court).

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, KuJoe said:

But they mentioned his e-mail address and I can attest first hand that an e-mail is enough to help link somebody's identity in the eyes of the law (at least in a federal court).

yes, they linked his email address to a user group for gay porn, that is not proof he uploaded said torrents, just that he was a member of a group who shares videos (many of which are legal to torrent and share).

[KuJoe]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

yes, they linked his email address to a user group for gay porn, that is not proof he uploaded said torrents, just that he was a member of a group who shares videos (many of which are legal to torrent and share).

I know that, I'm just pointing it out that an e-mail address is enough to link a persons identity even without the IP address.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, KuJoe said:

I know that, I'm just pointing it out that an e-mail address is enough to link a persons identity even without the IP address.

But it doesn't link him to the crime they accuse him of. All they have said is that they have his email address which links him to 2 user groups.  Nothing more.

[KuJoe]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

But it doesn't link him to the crime they accuse him of. All they have said is that they have his email address which links him to 2 user groups.  Nothing more.

Good, if that's the case then hopefully it works out in his favor.