Show HN: Rumuki, a prenup for sex tapes

Re:Show HN: Rumuki, a prenup for sex tapes by RegulatoryRoger on Sunday February 12, 2017 @10:14AM (#13628675)

In many places, paying for sex is illegal. Paying to make a pornography video isn't. Could this be used to build the Uber for sex?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Rumuki, a prenup for sex tapes by sseveran on Sunday February 12, 2017 @10:17AM (#13628695)

In short...No. https://www.popehat.com/2016/11/06/private-porn-shoots-brill...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Rumuki, a prenup for sex tapes by mseebach on Sunday February 12, 2017 @10:31AM (#13628767)

TL;DR: Very long and pretty offensive post that boils down to "because the courts aren't stupid and can probably tell the difference and by the way there are some specific legal requirement that when making porn you need to cross-reference IDs and you're probably not doing it".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Rumuki, a prenup for sex tapes by dfc on Sunday February 12, 2017 @10:39AM (#13628812)

Pretty offensive? What is it that you find so offensive about the post?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Rumuki, a prenup for sex tapes by mseebach on Sunday February 12, 2017 @12:05PM (#13629236)

The tone is pretty consistently contemptible towards the hypothetical asker, culminating in calling the asker "dumbass" and "imbicile".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Rumuki, a prenup for sex tapes by icebraining on Sunday February 12, 2017 @12:40PM (#13629442)

It's abrasive. It's only offensive if the hat fits.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Rumuki, a prenup for sex tapes by edoceo on Sunday February 12, 2017 @11:04AM (#13628931)

The domain mocks the Pope's hat.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Rumuki, a prenup for sex tapes by eganist on Sunday February 12, 2017 @10:19AM (#13628705)

This question is asked commonly enough that Popehat dedicated at least one post to explaining why the "porn exception" would flop:

https://www.popehat.com/2016/11/06/private-porn-shoots-brill...

[ Parent | on HN ]