Court Rules Against Gay Corbin Fisher Defendants Who Claimed Lawsuit Would “Out” Them

Some of the defendants accused of stealing from Corbin Fisher tried to proceed as anonymous defendants, but a Massachusetts judge isn’t having it:

The potential embarrassment to Does 1-38 of being associated with allegations of infringing hardcore pornography does not constitute an exceptional circumstance that would warrant allowing the defendants to proceed anonymously. As the Superior Court of Massachusetts stated, “mere embarrassment [is] not sufficient to override the strong public interest in disclosure.” Roe, 2011 WL 2342737, at *1. Thus, the potential embarrassment or social stigma that Does 1-38 may face once their identities are released in connection with this lawsuit is not grounds for allowing them to proceed anonymously.

Excellent! If you believe in equality for gays, you better be cheering this decision. Otherwise, you’re a hypocrite. Imagine if straight people who steal straight porn tried to say that suing them for stealing porn would be too “embarrassing.” Ha. Everyone should be treated equally under the law.

Techdirt, where I read the ruling this morning, disagrees:

For better or worse, one of the fears of many (including myself) is that such cases work even better as a “shakedown” game, because defendants who either are in the closet or are not gay and fear being sued for downloading gay porn are more likely to just pay up to avoid the embarrassment.

Yeah, well, maybe they should have thought about all that before they decided to steal. Sorry.

[Techdirt]

 

18 thoughts on “Court Rules Against Gay Corbin Fisher Defendants Who Claimed Lawsuit Would “Out” Them”

  1. Basically gay people have been segregated and persecuted throughout history. People are ignorant and don’t value human life so who cares if these people who are murdered in schools, abandoned as children, discriminated at the workplace, not given equal rights in most states and are judged on a mistranslated religious disgrace are forced to be revealed in a country that pretends to be diverse. If this was about African Americans it would be different. Most people would pay but people who are already living in fear of being outed in a world that still isn’t diverse enough to except them then we might as well stop being human.

    If they paid them that’s good enough, outing them seems more like organized crimes execution method, making an example that “we dont give a fuck how many kids kill themselves, we want our money and respect” a semi-nazi tactic.
    they’ve made hundreds of millions of dollars by suing everyone, “we want more than money we want you’re fear and for you to know what happens when you don’t give us what we want.”

  2. You don’t get to call me a hypocrite, without a reply from me. I couldn’t care less about Corbin Fisher one way or the other.

    I don’t have the time to explain what going on here to you. Just read the above comments. But, I wont’ be called a hypocrite by a hypocrite.

  3. if you are cought downloading or uploading stuff despite all the ways to protect your ip that are available FOR FREE,then you deserve it.and wtf with the lame embarrassment justification?you downloaded porn not a coldplay album,there’s nothing to be ashamed of!

  4. I’m always amused at where some people’s “principals” stop. Gay rights and equality for all (unless you’re not the most moral person or were subjected to homophobia while breaking the law, in which case it’s okay to allow a homophobic system to chew you up and spit you out). I guess homophobia and double standards are okay so long as they only happen to people who we can prove broke the law. Though at that point I think you should just specify that you’re not for gay rights, but rather are for gay rights for the right kind of gays.

    There’s also no shortage of irony here, supposedly passing it off as a victory for gay rights, as if a man being found to consume straight porn versus gay porn are two equivalent acts in our society. I don’t know what privileged bubble you live in that the threat of being outed publicly isn’t even remotely worrisome, but do consider that not everyone lives in the socially accepting environments you do. Some guy being found to have downloaded straight porn is not going to go to work the next day worrying if his boss will call him into the office for a firing or if he does, he can be sure it’s about the fact that he was named in a case, not that he was exposed as having watched straight porn. The gay guy may not be so lucky. And arguing that if he wanted to avoid it he shouldn’t have broken the law? That’s nice and all (not really), but it doesn’t address the homophobic double standard at work. In fact it only functions as an excuse to do nothing of value except be judgmental. Which I guess is really what this whole space is about.

    1. Not at all. Speaking for myself, I am not here to judge other or imposed a double standard, but to speak the truth as I see it as it relates to this subject. If someone is living in a community where they believe that they could be harassed for being gay, or fired from their job if their name appeared in the media about this case, the problem here is with that community, with that employer. It’s illegal to harass people in your neighborhood, regardless of the reason. And as for job security, it should be illegal everywhere to be fired for being gay (it’s not), or for something like being found to have downloaded porn, and these are struggles that should continue. No one should accept this kind of homophobia, and we must sometimes live in less than ideal conditions where we have to stand up for what’s right and work (sometimes slowly to change things).

      But if the only reason for requesting anonymity is the shame a defendant feels about being exposed, well, as much as I can empathize and understand, it’s not right. There is NO shame to be had in being a porn consumer or porn lover. I would LOVE to be sued by Corbin Fisher, refuse his offer/threat of dropping the case if I paid a fee, embrace my day in court, and defend myself. Of course I wouldn’t lie, and if I downloaded his shit illegally, would testify as to why I did and/or why I think it is okay, but that’s for another day. I certainly wouldn’t care if my name was published as someone who looks at porn.

      Yes, the hate in society is harsher on homos than hets, and, yes, there are risks associated with being publicly revealed as gay. But the judge handling this Corbin Fisher case, or Corbin Fisher him/itself for god’s sake, are NOT responsible for fixing these problems.

      And, besides, the defendants [allegedly] downloaded this porn illegally and violated private copyrights. And they committed these acts privately, in their own home, under the supposed guise of anonymity, and for free, i.e., without having to show up in person at a store or submit their info via a credit card. They perpetrated the crime precisely so they could maintain anonymity, so how can we then also grant it to them during a proceeding that is supposed to be transparent and open to the public? Grow a backbone, take responsibility for your actions, stand up to your homophobic neighbors or move, stand up for yourself at your job or move, or move and sue if you are fired — and if you believe that you were in the right to download those porn files, take your day in court and say so.

  5. haha well that’s 1 way to get outed. personally I feel no compassion for the thieves. CF is out there trying to protect their product, which any business has the absolute right to do. These thieves only have themselves to blame for any repercussions from their outing.

  6. Zach, that’s not really a fair comparison.

    Being outed as someone who consumes porn is one thing.

    In that respect, gay and straight defendants would (theoretically) face the same consequence: embarrassment about being outed as consumers of pornography.

    But being outed as gay (men consuming gay porn will be assumed to be gay/bi whether they are in reality or not) is an additional element of “outing” that straight defendants in this case wouldn’t have to face.

    Obviously some would say, “Who cares, they are thieves and deserve everything they get” and maybe that’s true, but it’s isn’t true that the consequences for being outed are equal in this case or that a belief in “equal rights” would lead one to not see the nuances.

    The very real existence of homophobia and inadequate laws to deal with its systemic nature means that the consumers of gay porn would inherently have additional level of fallout beyond just a monetary judgment.

    So for instance, you might have to pay a fine if you are straight or settle with CF and go about your business but the odds of you boss finding out and firing you for having downloaded porn (straight porn) seems unlikely to me. I’m not certain the same could be said for someone gay.

    There is an extra stigma for gay folks. That’s just real.

    Again, maybe they deserve the punishment of being outed but I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the non-legal consequences are the same for gay defendants as they are for straight defendants.

    Back in the 60s and 70s, gay men were frequently outed in local newspapers for doing the same illegal things in parks that straight couples did all the time in those same parks (mostly in cars or on benches instead of the public bathrooms and bushes) without fear of the straight men having their names show up in the papers as “perverts”.

    In fact, in many states right now, gay people making out in public can be designated as “sex offenders” even if they are fully clothed and not actually engaged in a sexual act (meaning they’d have to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life, wherever they live). Homophobia plays a huge part in how the same punishment can have a different effect when the defendants are gay.

    The consequences for the same behavior has NEVER been the same.

    We might all agree that they are thieves (regardless of how you feel about CF, illegal downloading is illegal downloading) and deserved to be punished with a fine or settlement (just light straight folks in a similar situation), I can’t get behind the idea that being outed as gay publicly is inconsequential for these defendants ( I live in NYC and have luckily never needed to be closeted so I know that is a privileged reality).

    I don’t know what the laws are like in Florida so I don’t know what the consequences would be for people outed there (Massachusetts is a totally different situation) but I know there are not a lot of legal protections in Florida for lgbt folks

    Equality is not always about being treated blindly the same (as if there is no systemic prejudice and we are all started on level playing field). It is often about determining what is fair in a particular context.

    Other than wanting to out the defendants as gay, I can’t see any other reason why the judge wouldn’t just allow them to remain anonymous and try them and fine them accordingly. I don’t see how the public is served by knowing the names of the defendants.

    1. Let me make sure I undertand you and nhuixnhuix. So a closeted gay guy does a “dine and dash” at the Abbey, a popular gay bar in West Hollywood. He gets caught and is charged with theft. Are you saying that his identity should be protected for fear of being outed? What about the guy that shoplifts lube and condoms from the Pleasure Chest or a thong from the clothing store on Santa Monica Blvd? And, the guy that is busted soliciting cock in the Circus of Books parking lot? All of these guys get to remain anonymous too? Nice!

    2. Oh please, Persa, I can’t disagree strongly enough with your various assumptions and conclusions, but I will try:

      The 60s/70s public park raids and subsequent listing of names of all arrested “perverts,” yes, were unfair, and sad, insomuch as those same kinds of arrests and public “outings” weren’t being levied upon the straight public sex participants of effectively identical scenarios.

      However, your park raid/outing example has nothing to do with what is actually going on in this case. A private company is suing individuals who violated company policy (and the law) by illegally sharing or downloading copyrighted material.

      And let’s all be very precise here — this suit was not brought down upon “gays” as a group, and it is not being launched by one of the various arms of public law enforcement or legislative authority, e.g., the police, or the County/State District Attorney’s office, like the public sex arrests and outings of the past half century.

      Also, no one is publishing the names of these suspected downloaders for the purpose of calling them “pervert.” You say that publicly releasing the defendants’ names in this lawsuit will mean an unfair or unequal emotional burden for gays. But in this case this “burden” is entirely created and perpetuated by the gay defendants themselves. It’s 100% all about their own hangups about themselves, sexuality, and porn viewership, etc. I could go for Dell Taco right now.

      None of these illegal porn downloaders, aka these defendants, need be embarrassed when publicly identified in this suit. And the nature of the suit makes no effort to embarrass them. Nor does it attempt to distinguish between defendants who define as gay and those who say they’re straight.

      All defendants are being treated equally to one other, and will be granted full due process, an interesting by-product of which will be the option for each defendant to pay a specific amount in exchange for having the suit dropped against him, his anonymity remaining intact.

      And as awful as this whole thing is in some ways, and as wrong-headed and dickish Corbin Fisher may be acting and running his business (beyond all the profits made off gays), he is still in the right here.

      The fact that Corbin Fisher is savvy enough to see that many of these defendant dudes may REALLY want to remain anonymous, and that he is also savvy enough to then capitalize on this notion by applying public pressure, but also giving them a choice between being outed and settling privately via cash payoff – well, it shows balls. Evil balls, yes, and unethical in some ways in how he is dealing with gays, but in the end Corbin Fisher is merely trying to get paid for the illegally download files they stole from him.

      There is no police paddy wagon threatening arrest or roughing up guys emerging from the bushes — and there is no public list of “perverts” being published. The court ruled in the end that there was no exceptional circumstance that would legally justify these men being allowed to proceed anonymously. And I believe it is in the court’s, and the state’s, and the public’s best interest to have full-disclosure of exactly who is breaking laws in their state, and for what, and be able to follow, document, research, and cite the details and outcome of these cases.

      And I agree that some of the defendants will definitely be “embarrassed,” or maybe one of their wives finds out he’s into Corbin Fisher’s 5th-tier-college-pink-underslit porn, and files for divorce — but none of this is Corbin Fisher’s fault, nor the court’s.

      Those men made the choice to enter into that online file sharing/gambling world and play around, and test limits, and take some good shit for free — and now they need to prepare for the consequences of those choices. I say enjoy it.

  7. Does it make what difference what a court in Massachusetts decides when, last I heard, the cases were being filed in Florida? I really haven’t been keeping up with it very well but I though that a California judge ruled a IP address was NOT definitive proof of identity, while another state ruled that WiFi owners were responsible for securing access.

    Each state seems to sets its own laws and guidelines for liability. Does it mean the Corbin Fisher will have to file in each state to set a precedent?

    I just think it is sad that someone is stealing such a poor product. I mean if you are going to steal donuts then you take the hot freshly baked ones not the day old stale wheat bran version. At least one person had to pay for a membership and then upload the scenes. That’s the guy that got ripped off.

    I am kidding in that last paragraph. Corbin Fisher like any studio that uses an abundance of gay4payers is hit and miss when it comes to the quality of the performance but they have occassionaly been successful. The fact that there is so much theft, is one of the reasons that porn has been over run by cheap studios and gay4payers working for a $100 and a bag of weed. Why would you spend time and money to make a product that you will never see a profit on?

  8. Sorry but Zach but you undermine your own case. I actually can perfectly imagine people who download straight porn making the exact same argument about embarassment and anonymity. I am actually willing to bet it has been made before.

    If CF was just about preventing the theft of their content rather than setting a precedent for, indeed, shakedowns, they could allow the case to proceed anonymously, get their win and their damages, advertise the case to deter future thieves without the extra cruelty of the “outing” (however sincere the defendants’ “fears” are). That they insist on getting the names out is proof that this is more about telling future people “you’d better settle coz, see, what happened that time” than getting a judgement against them for the content thievery which they are entitled to do and would get regardless of whether the defendants stayed anonymous to the wider public.

      1. I did Zach. I am not sure what you seem to think I got wrong.

        I disagreed with the fact the “outing” of the name is a victory for gay rights since I assert that unlike what you said, straight people could have made the exact same argument about keeping their names secret in a porn-related lawsui

        And I said that while CF is perfectly entitled to sue and will certainly will win their case, outing the names is unnecessary and part of, as the lawyer says, of a shakedown strategy rather than an important point. Which you are not arguing one way or another but you are presenting as a great news and while I am skeptical of how many of those people are really “scared” of being outed and I am generally agreeing with you about CF being in the right on the substance, I am not necessarily celebrating the pettiness of the names issue. CF is entitled to do this but I am not finding this to be great. And it makes it easy for the people who are indeed in the wrong to turn around and present CF as the villain when CF could have gotten the same result without making the names public.
        That was my second point and it wasn’t really in response to anything you specifically said.

        So what did I read wrong?

        1. OK. I’ll help you since I’m procrastinating getting my other work done.

          “straight people could have made the exact same argument about keeping their names secret”

          And they would be laughed out of court. Again, imagine ANYONE (straight or gay) asking to not have their name released in conjunction with ANY kind of lawsuit. That’s the thing about stealing and being sued, it becomes a matter of public record whether you like it or not. Why should gays be given special treatment just because they’re gay?

          As far as your other point, I guess you missed the fact that it was a district court judge who ruled that the names be made public–not Corbin Fisher.

          1. CF didn’t have to ask. The judge agreed with them, fine, as I said, I don’t think the argument is that solid either but CF didn’t have to ask. The judge wouldn’t have ordered them released if CF had said they were fine with getting the judgement without making the names public.

            And your response to the straight thing is misguided. I didn’t argue that they wouldn’t be equally laughed out of court. I said straight people could make the same argument and it would be judged and rejected on similar merits and therefore your celebration of this judgement as victory for gay rights was misguided. It was a bad argument that had nothing to do with sexuality.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 50 MB. You can upload: image. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Scroll to Top