Hacker News Reader

Comment by randyrand | Hacker News Reader

was it hidden in the contract? just curious the extent of the lying.

"The contracts were filled with “dense and ambiguous language,” including one 140-word paragraph that Enright called “a grammatical labarynth.” The contract covers “photographs, pictures or portraits” and printed material. “It does not, however, mention GirlsDoPorn.com, nor the words ‘internet,’ ‘online,’ or ‘website,’” Enright wrote. “It is thus designed to obscure what will actually be done with the videos and to encourage continued reliance on defendants’ repeated representations, promises, and testimonials from hired ‘references.’”"

https://www.law.com/therecorder/2020/01/02/girlsdoporn-faces...

I’m just curious if they, barring other circumstances, broke their legal textual contracts as well. A contract that just says “we can do anything we want” would fit your description.

The contracts were copy/paste boilerplate bullshit. The women were told the recordings were for wealthy private collectors and would never be widely released. The women were often flown to other states, plied with alcohol, and then told they would only be flown home if they co-operated. These guys are barely a notch above kidnappers, rapists, and sex traffickers.

The stories have been around online for a while, but now they're convicted of this insidious garbage. Do not support GirlsDoPorn.

From the article

"launched in 2006 by New Zealander Michael Pratt and operated by Ruben Garcia and Matthew Wolfe. Filmed in homes, hotels and trailer parks"

"During the course of the civil trial, Pratt, Garcia and Wolfe were criminally indicted for sex trafficking, among other charges. Garcia and Wolfe are currently in federal custody. Pratt is a fugitive."

Disgusting criminal, manipulative behavior that harmed a lot of people.

My understanding is the girls are told that the videos will go in some wealthy dude's private collection or something like that. No one reads contracts.

And even if they do, contracts dont always represent the actual agreement being made [0]. As someone who does actually read contracts, most of the time they are generic contracts for the general thing you are agreeing to, and reflect none of the specific details (and sometimes contradict the specific details).

[0] Of course, absent compelling evidence to this effect, courts would look to the contract to determine what agreement was made, so if you care about the innacurate provisions, do not sign until they are corrected.

That seems to echo exactly what is stated in the article.

"They were promised that the footage would go straight to DVD for wealthy buyers in other countries, in particular Australia and New Zealand, where the defendants come from."

"private" of course doesn't mean will remain private, however.

I’ve read all the important contracts I get. Apartment, car, job, etc.

Contracts can be spoken as well as written, and spoken things can also legally be considered part of the contract even when there is a written contract.

Very hard to prove, even in a civil case. Best to have things in written or some other form of legal recorded medium

That seems like the precedent that is being set by this case. I’m curious if this is a novel ruling.

the contracts were standard release forms for people that arent part of guilds, the court looked at the coercion

should also know that this headline isnt the main part of the case

from the article

>plied with alcohol

contracts might not matter

... and then told they wouldn’t be flown home, too, if they tried to back out. There are jurisdictions where this would be a rape case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com