Not what I assumed:

>This particular defamation case was not related to Moore's revenge porn activities

I'm more curious how the cases involving his revenge porn sites will go.

  > frustrated him to the point where he'd represent victims pro bono. "I want to hurt them bad," he wrote. "If anyone out there has been scammed by these crooks, contact me."

Presumably there's more in the pipeline.

Is this "revenge porn" for real or is this another case of the media taking porn industry kayfabe at face value? Between 2257 record-keeping laws and various state anti-peeping-tom laws doing a profitable revenge porn site for real seems a lot harder and riskier than just faking it.

"In professional wrestling, kayfabe (pronounced /ˈkeɪfeɪb/) is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as "real" or "true," specifically the portrayal of competition and rivalries between participants as being genuine or not of a worked nature. "[1]

Was "kayabe" a new word for anyone else? The wikipedia article is remarkably long for a word I had never heard of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayfabe

I looked up "heel" since it was used to describe someone, and seemed more specific than just "bad person", and wasted another 30-60 minutes learning about Kayfabe, Mexican wrestling, etc.

It's this kind of thing Wikipedia excels at, vs. Quora or forum sites or really anything since USENET.

I had heard it before, but, based on the frequency with which I hear it, it is a new word for the majority of people.

These ones do appear to be real. I don't know HOW, due to the reasons you give. Most sites that claim to be revenge porn are "fake" (in the sense that - thankfully - everyone in the videos has consented). You can tell 'cos the submit page requests signatures and documentation from all people in the film.

Yes, they're real. Ars has done some good articles on them, particularly IsAnyoneDown. Ex-boyfriends post sext pics online, ex-girlfriends then pay "independent" lawyers to take the pics down, it's a brilliant racket.

What exactly is revenge porn and how does "defamation" apply in this case (I am aware that the suit does not involve defamation in a way related to revenge porn)? If it involves posting pornographic pictures involving others that approved of the pictures in the first place, how could that activity constitute defamation?

"Revenge porn" is posting pornographic pictures of your exes (or other people of whom you have such pictures, and don't have permission to post it publicly). The idea being that you shame your exes by posting your dirty photos of them from when you were dating. Apparently the sites also include real names and hometowns of the people posted, or in some cases even addresses and phone numbers, to increase the chances of them being embarrassed by people who know them finding the pictures.

This particular defamation suit has nothing to do with revenge porn per se. It just happens that the founder of a revenge porn website is a huge asshole, and started making (presumably) baseless accusations of pedophilia against someone who campaigns against cyber bullying and who helped shut down his first revenge porn site. The details are a bit more complicated, but that's the gist.

So the defamation lawsuit is about his pedophilia accusation, not anything directly to do with the revenge porn sites, though I think there are some other pending privacy lawsuits about them too.

>"Revenge porn" is posting pornographic pictures of your exes

>Apparently the sites also include real names and hometowns of the people posted, or in some cases even addresses and phone numbers, to increase the chances of them being embarrassed by people who know them finding the pictures.

>It just happens that the founder of a revenge porn website is a huge asshole

Didn't see that one comming! Did M. Night Shyamalan write this post? :)

Hunter Moore at one point operated a website dedicated to posting pornographic images, ostensibly without the permission of the participants. (I say ostensibly because as far as I know it hasn't gone to court. The media coverage certainly implied that permission was lacking.) He used the presence of other, more legitimate pornography to defend the site but in my opinion legitimacy wasn't really his goal. (His new website's selling point is identifying information.)

As a free-speech advocate I'm leery of defamation lawsuits in general, but (again, in my opinion) Moore has gone well past the point of being merely 'offensive' and moved on to actively endangering other people for no reason. Accusing someone of possessing child pornography because you don't like them is getting pretty close to the line as well. So I don't have much sympathy.

please read the article ... at least.

I hope people will come to the right conclusion about the whole Hunter Moore incident : once a potentially harmful information leaves your control there is no good way to stop it from reaching people you don't want it to. Sexting is probably not a good idea, at least until our society normalizes to the age of free-flowing information.

Not sure why this was downvoted, it may not be nice but it is fairly accurate.

Seriously how the fuck can we earn money that way and still be considered as an honest citizen ???

What is a "revenge porn" site? At work don't want to Google this....

Ex-girlfriend/boyfriend posting nude photos of their ex.

I think Moore claimed it was legal if the person submitting the photos actually took the photo, as they held the copyright, and even if they didn't he was protected under DMCA.

The person who takes the photo does own it. But despite owning the photo there are still lots of things you can't do with the photo (like make money with it) without the signature of the "model" you photographed.

This is great news. Scumbags like him will have to think twice now.

Scumbags all around in this case, unfortunately. The lawyer representing the other party in this case installs malware on the computers of people trying to pirate (one of his other) client's porn. The malware demands a paid settlement on a timer or it will lock access to the computer.

I shit you not.

I'm having difficulty imagining a set of circumstances under which the behavior described does not constitute a felony.

It's gay porn (Corbin Fisher). Maybe they're banking on the shame factor for some people.

I don't want to speculate on the legality of it but overall it's pretty damn offensive.

But it (the judgement) has nothing to do with revenge porn; it's about a tweet that the scumbag made, accusing someone of having child porn.

The world is not divided into scumbags and non-scumbags.

Sure it is, if you have a predicate for "scumbag?".

There is scarcely one definition you could conceive of which, if honestly applied, would be meaningful. Anyone living in the industrialized world with a shred of self-awareness and a remotely interesting life would have to concede that they themselves would be deserving of such a label, for some reasonable criteria.

Anyone who says otherwise is either BS'ing you, or boring. So there's your predicate: scumbags, and boring people.

I'm usually not for vendetta, but with that punk i would not mind. Is this thing legal really ? or is it because the victim are not big corporations that can bribe lawmakers to make it illegal ?

It's an issue of copyright which means at best its a DMCA violation as long as he filled out his forms and registered his agent.

The owner of the site is in all likelihood not very liable and as long as he complies with the DMCA it's unlikely to go to a higher court where the whole concept of the site could be shutdown.

The whole defamation thing is silly as the 'antibullying' people really pose little risk to the site.

Wait, are you saying the revenge porn site is an issue of copyright? Because AFAIK, pornography distributors are required to keep records of the people in their photographs and videos, specifically so they can prove they are over 18.

is this good or bad?

this is the reason i detest facebook. People post pictures of others which links to their profiles. It is very similar to what this person is doing. Fb wouldn't falsely accuse people though.