There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

badbrainstorm ,
@badbrainstorm@lemmy.world avatar

Lame

101 OP ,
@101@reddthat.com avatar

I am confused, are you talking about the man or Reddit or the news or what?

johsny ,
@johsny@lemmy.world avatar

Yes.

subignition ,
@subignition@fedia.io avatar

Can you please leave the whole "responding when you're not the person who was asked" bit behind, thanks

unreachable ,
@unreachable@lemmy.world avatar

you’re welcome

^/j

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

No

lemmy_user_838586 ,

Wow… While the action is ethically crappy, I never would have thought that to be an arrestable offense. Using the actresses to generate new nudes and porn scenes? Sure, but to literally cut out the nude scenes from real movies? Kind of crazy to get arrested for that without some sort of warning or cease and desist letter first.

conciselyverbose ,

Yeah, an arrest for something that would be generally understood to be fair use is a lot.

I can see the case for “that’s not fair use”. I’m not necessarily convinced either way. But an arrest?

psycho_driver ,

Fair use for tugging it

protist ,

Looks like this is happening in Denmark, which has different laws than the US’s “fair use.”

conciselyverbose ,

I get that, but the general understanding of fair use is relatively homogeneous. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be able to take it down, just that an arrest for it when most people’s first guess would be that it’s legal seems harsh.

NeoNachtwaechter ,

I get that, but the general understanding of fair use is relatively homogeneous.

No, not at all. Only the anglo american culture has that term. Greek/Roman influenced cultures think quite differently about copyright topics in general. African and Asian, I don’t know.

General_Effort ,

Not at all. The US conserves something of the enlightenment tradition of freely sharing information; vital for the advancement of science, technology, and culture. Free speech and free press means that you can say and print what you like (press at the time literally meant the printing press, not the media). Limitations in the form of copyrights or patents are only allowed where it helps those goals.

Continental European copyright preserves a monarchical, aristocratic tradition. It’s rooted in ideas of personal privilege and honor. For example, it’s illegal to deface an artwork even when you own it because it’s an attack on the honor of the artist. The term “royalties” comes from the fact that it was a privilege granted by royalty.

It’s revealing that Europe has basically the same patent system as the US. You can’t do without technology, even if you are an authoritarian ruler. What would your armies do? But copyright is just about culture, usually. You don’t want that to be a needless source of instability. You want a clique of cronies to be in charge of that. That’s what you see in Europe.

Gork ,

Has Denmark ever arrested anyone before for copyright infringement? In most other places this is a civil, not a criminal thing.

protist , (edited )

That’s not true at all, there are criminal penalties on the books for this sort of thing in pretty much all western countries

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zxXf8ouMXgE/hqdefault.jpg

101 OP , (edited )
@101@reddthat.com avatar

I am very shocked for the whole thing,This is a very bad precedent.

The man literally did something that the website itself allows by default (by allowing the subreddit) the one at fault here is Reddit, not the man himself. They are the ones who should deal with the consequences.

wizardbeard ,

Ehhhhh… that’s a pretty shit take. Any site that allows uploads of files “allows” uploads of CSAM? See how that breaks down immediately?

BrianTheeBiscuiteer ,

A porn company could make the same, out-of-context argument just to slap an extra charge onto the arrest. That 2 minutes of badly acted exposition was a critical reason why she’s taking cocks in 3 holes. It’s really a lovely scene you turned into pure filth!

0x0 ,

I think the judge would know it when they see it and laugh them out of the court room.

conciselyverbose ,

Just FYI, this wasn’t clips of porn. This was actual movies with nude scenes.

Still not entirely sure how I feel about it, but I do agree it’s not the same thing.

DarkThoughts ,

Assuming he did not upload the whole movie or demanded money for those scenes, I don't see how that's a good case for the copyright holder. Movie snippets are used all the time, everywhere, including YouTube, without this being much of an issue. The most glaring one there would be the auto detection, which again, is more to prevent actual piracy being shared.

Edit: Also, why is he getting arrested instead of getting a letter?!

conciselyverbose ,

Part of the (US) definition of fair use is the impact of the use on the original party. Killing their viewership with a review is still fair use because it’s balanced with the public’s right to a review, but I think there’s a legitimate argument that turning their movie into nothing but a sex object, especially systematically like that, does harm that’s not protected.

ABCDE ,

It’s just abuse. You deliver something for the production and the story, and then you end up being molested that way,” Jensen said.

Abuse? Molested? This is a load of shit. If they don’t want to be seen nude then don’t be filmed nude.

SirEDCaLot ,

This is also why I am thankful for the American first amendment.
It would appear that in that user’s country, it is considered additionally a crime to take the nude scene out of context.
I think a lot of people online take freedom of speech for granted, not realizing that many supposedly civilized countries have an increasing number of restrictions on unpopular speech, critical speech, or otherwise undesirable speech like this.

BrianTheeBiscuiteer ,

I also would’ve expected nudity to be less taboo there. Would it have been just as likely to be arrested for sharing fully clothed still shots? That would actually make a lot more sense: distribution of copyrighted, non-promotional material.

SirEDCaLot ,

I think the issue isn’t nudity but sexualization-- IE nude scene in context of a film is fine, chopping the nude scene out of the film is basically turning the actress into a porn star and that’s not fine. Same attitude is why the actress called it molestation. Different attitude as a society I guess.

General_Effort ,

Make no mistake. The US is heading in the same direction. Look at the proposed anti-deepfake laws. That guy could be prosecuted extremely harshly under those.

SirEDCaLot ,

It will be interesting to see that tested in court. I don’t think anyone would complain about for example a pencil sketch of a naked celebrity, that would be considered free speech and fair use even if it is a sketch of a scene from a movie.

So where does the line go? If the pencil sketch is legal, what if you do a digital sketch with Adobe illustrator and a graphics tablet? What if you use the Adobe AI function to help clean up the image? What if you take screen grabs of a publicity shot of the actor’s face and a nude image of someone else, and use them together to trace the image you end up painting? What if you then use AI to help you select colors and help shading? What if you do each of those processes individually but you have AI do each of them? That is not very functionally different from giving an AI a publicity shot and telling it to generate a nude image.

As I see it, The only difference between the AI deepfake and the fake produced by a skilled artist is the amount of time and effort required. And while that definitely makes it easy to turn out an awful lot of fakes, it’s bad policy to ban one and not the other simply based on the process by which the image was created.

capital ,

Guess if they pass we’ll see how they stand up to the 1st.

the_post_of_tom_joad ,

Yeah sorry this isn’t molestation, this is how media works in a digital connected world. The fact the entertainment industry has been denying the realities of their industry for 50 some odd years causes some head-scratching takes, like an actress being “molested” by someone jerking off to her in a scene they didnt pay for. No, sorry lady, once you expose the flesh to the camera you relinquish the right to keep it to yourself.

These stupid goddamn articles always trot out some actress or stagehand to humanize the ‘victims’ too, when its really just rich production companies losing money. Fuck everything about this.

wizardbeard ,

Regretting doing a nude scene is humanizing. Making your regret someone else’s problem is just shitty all around.

argh_another_username ,

So, is r/celebnsfw closing? Because it’s exactly what it is. Guy was probably the only human in a sea of bots posting there.

unreachable ,
@unreachable@lemmy.world avatar

!WatchItForThePlot

DudeImMacGyver ,
@DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works avatar

That seems insane, is there some special reason they got arrested that was left out of something?

Asafum ,

Money. You aren’t paying for the video that the scene is from, you’re just watching the scene.

It’s almost always about money… Absolutely absurd

General_Effort ,

Rights Alliance also called on Reddit to take the matter seriously. While many of the problematic clips were already removed at that point, the group urged Reddit to implement upload filters to prevent future trouble.

Nothing sinister here, folks. Just defending helpless women against those evil techbros.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •