Cam Girls Gone Wild...

February 14, 2002 2:05 AM

Cam Girls Gone Wild... Looks like Webpig from InternetGossip is putting together a little side project to complement his popular tabloid site. I bet the parents of these girls would be thrilled to know the type of subculture their daughters have gotten involved in. Nevertheless, this is genius, ( as far as tacky things like this go). There's a P.O. box somewhere in Orange County just begging to be filled up with cash from this methinks.
posted by rabbit (40 comments total)

This has to be borderline illegal as well. Though i'm not familiar with specific laws with regard to these matters.
posted by rabbit at 2:08 AM on February 14, 2002

If we just ignore these stupid cam girls, they'll go away. As far as their parents go, they can't be too worried, since it was probably their money that paid for the whole computer setup.
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:27 AM on February 14, 2002

"What? Do you I'm THAT stupid?"
might be my new favorite retort.
posted by droob at 4:31 AM on February 14, 2002

Think he wrote Prince for permission to use the music?

Hey Prince- I would like 2 use ur music 4 selling some smut.
posted by kahboom at 4:34 AM on February 14, 2002

What would these girls be doing if there was no Internet?
posted by tommasz at 5:14 AM on February 14, 2002

Not necessarily safe for work BTW.
posted by jackiemcghee at 5:33 AM on February 14, 2002

Besides copyright infringement, I don't how any of those pictures could be considered illegal. It's not like they showed anything substantially more than what you can see on TV.
posted by mischief at 5:44 AM on February 14, 2002

Maybe he has more incentive to put this up, ever since he was fired from his job for it.
posted by littleyellowdifferent at 8:38 AM on February 14, 2002

Reading WebPig's sob story about getting fired completely redeemed the time I wasted checking out the video. Not to mention the revolting comments on his site, where nobody seemed concerned with the fact that these girls didn't authorize the use of their naked pictures for anything but one individual's private spanking, and in fact, seemed to believe that all these girls are somehow getting what they deserve in this. As if a lack of good judgment were grounds for nullification of a person's right to a little bit of human respect.

The naked photos and even the I-got-fired story could be Photoshop and lies, but the attitudes of his readers are all too real. Obviously they have a vested interest in seeing their 'favorite' camgirls being made to look as low and slutty as possible---it makes their sick little voyeurism/stalking habits seem more justifiable.

It's the old 'she was asking for it' bullshit updated for the digital age, and quite frankly, it makes me want to castrate somebody with my bare hands.
posted by Sapphireblue at 9:26 AM on February 14, 2002

Oh ugh. This is Stile-lite. And now he sits morosely at home wondering at his awful fate. Cue violins.

*(Waves to Sapphire from a distance, scuttles away fearfully.)*
posted by Skot at 9:56 AM on February 14, 2002

Ya, knowing he got fired actually redeems my hope for the real world. It is pedophilia, it is illegal, it is immoral, and he should be prosecuted. (IMHO) Really, I hope one of the underage girls reports him to the feds.

(Although, I admit, I have no idea who the girls referenced are, the "camgirl" phenomenon is way out of the scope of my radar.)
posted by dejah420 at 10:51 AM on February 14, 2002

I bet the parents of these girls would be thrilled to know the type of subculture their daughters have gotten involved in.

Subculture? you mean, humanity?
posted by delmoi at 11:21 AM on February 14, 2002

I'm very pleased to see WebPig (appropriate username) hung out to dry.

The point of the matter is that actions have consequences. Just because those actions are taking place online, that doesn't mean that the law of cause and effect have flown out the window.

If camgirls got naked on cam, then they have to accept the potential consequences, and if WebPig decided to violate the privacy and copyrights of these women and to get involved with something that appears to be damn close to child pornography, then he should accept the consequences too.
posted by insomnia_lj at 12:24 PM on February 14, 2002

Ah, ChelleCam, where even a young guy like me can feel like a dirty old man.
posted by owillis at 12:28 PM on February 14, 2002

I have a buddy who practically worships one of these girls (Nay/Renee or whatever). I was working with him one night and he pulled up her site and showed it to me. Sure she was reasonably attractive, but COME ON people - these girls are like 15-16 years old. No matter how much older they try to look or act, they're still little girls. I think the whole "CAMGIRL" thing is one of the internet's extremely grey areas, but this CGGW thing is just WRONG!
posted by deviant at 1:13 PM on February 14, 2002

I think it's hilarious. Looking at the same level of semi-nudity in high school girls that you might easily see on MTV or Charmed is not pedophilia, and reproducing an image that you did not create is not rape. What he's doing might not be very nice, but I can think of one or two more crimes that have more serious consequences and involve more innocent victims.
posted by bingo at 1:16 PM on February 14, 2002

I dunno who has more issues, the camgirls or the camgirl fans?
posted by mcsweetie at 1:37 PM on February 14, 2002

I can think of worse crimes than rape, too---say, murder?---but that fact doesn't make rape okay.

I didn't hear anyone saying this is the Worst Thing Ever Done. Of course there's been worse, that's not the point. The point is that if Mr. Pig is indeed planning to publish naked/erotic photos of girls who thought they were getting naked just for him, that is a pretty harsh violation of privacy.

Which, you know, I don't see as being particularly amusing, but maybe that's just me.
posted by Sapphireblue at 1:45 PM on February 14, 2002

What the hell did he think would happen?

And how sad is it that a 30 year old man is obsessed with underage girls?

Another question I have is; Where in the hell are some of these girls parents? Why are these girls able to do all of this?
posted by SuzySmith at 2:22 PM on February 14, 2002

I dunno who has more issues, the camgirls or the camgirl fans?

The fans IMO - 40-somethings buying $300 digital cameras and PS2's for 16 year old CAMGIRLS from their Amazon wishlists. What I don't understand is what these "fans" think they'll get out of it??
posted by deviant at 2:23 PM on February 14, 2002

Wow, I wish people would stop using my name for such lewd purposes. :-)

I love this sentence:

"If camgirls got naked on cam..."

Yeah, I'd like that too. :-)

Anyway, I don't condone all of the obviously illegal acts described above. I'm pretty sure a lot of people are glad that I own camworld.com/org/net as otherwise they'd surely be porn sites by now.

Honestly though, I just don't see the allure of webcams. Shrug.
posted by camworld at 2:26 PM on February 14, 2002

I think a better analogy would be to say that there are worse crimes than parking in the handicapped space; like say, shoplifting.

No one said it was the worst thing ever done. But you yourself said it makes you want to castrate someone with your bare hands. Was I wrong to read that as an indication that you think some really serious wrong has been done here?

The girls did not think they were getting naked just for him. Just look at their URL's. I recognize one of them as one of the most popular sites on the Stile Project's camwhore meter.
posted by bingo at 2:35 PM on February 14, 2002

Sorry, that last post mainly directed at Sapphireblue and his/her most recent comments.
posted by bingo at 2:37 PM on February 14, 2002

i have huge doubts that he actually got fired due to an all-caps anonymous email.

Nothing that he did was illegal, and you cannot get fired for non-illegal activities done away from work (im a former HR guy). Although the accusation of being a pediophile might be accurate, there's no proof of it.

However, if he does put naked pictures of underage girls on any of his sites, the law will have a case to shut him down and arrest him.

Aren't there enough girls his own age to play with?
posted by tsarfan at 2:48 PM on February 14, 2002

Read back. I said the "she got what was comin' to her" mentality makes me want to maim. I'm fed up to here with blame-the-victim excuses for exploitation of women. To wit:

Did you see the little tiny skirt on her?

Did you see how drunk she was?

Did you see the way she looked at me?

Did you see that salacious URL?

All of the above can be evidence of bad judgment. None of the above makes it okay for some asshole with a hard-on to take advantage. It sure makes it easier, but it doesn't make it okay.

And if it was a NetMeeting session, that's private. Do you have a webcam, bingo, or do you just like to watch? I have a cam, so I'm pretty familiar with the software that runs them, and NetMeeting is not the same thing as cranking up Webcam32 and broadcasting to the world. NetMeeting is a one-to-one connection, and for one party to turn around and make it public to all comers---pun intended, believe it---is, again, a flagrant disregard for a human being's privacy.

But hey, girls in midriff tops and heavy eye makeup obviously don't want any privacy, so anything goes!
posted by Sapphireblue at 2:49 PM on February 14, 2002

tsarfa. Wanna bet? It happened to me back in 1997.
posted by camworld at 2:50 PM on February 14, 2002

I'm fed up to here with blame-the-victim excuses for exploitation of women

On the flip side, I'm just as fed up with the "he's obviously guilty, because, well... see... he's A MAN. You know how they are" line of thought.
posted by owillis at 2:53 PM on February 14, 2002

Are you on topic, owillis? It is, mostly, a serious question.

Are you saying someone here is engaging in that sort of reverse-sexist mindset, or are you just setting the scene for the derailment of this thread into a boys-against-girls free-for-all?
posted by Sapphireblue at 2:57 PM on February 14, 2002

what sapphireblue asked. if you really think that's the sort of argument michelle is trying to make, methinks you'd better scroll back and read, this time with your 'poor me' filter turned off.
posted by maura at 3:01 PM on February 14, 2002

Argh. What I'm saying is these girls aren't necessarily the poor little innocents being exploited by the big bad man as you seem to be indicating.
posted by owillis at 3:12 PM on February 14, 2002

need a shovel to dig that deeper ditch, owillis? ;)
posted by terrapin at 3:20 PM on February 14, 2002

I didn't say they were innocent. If they're engaging in NetMeeting naughties with some 30-year-old pervert guy, that's obviously not the case. But even so, no matter what, they have the right to expect that a one-on-one interaction is not recycled into titillation for the Internet masses.
posted by Sapphireblue at 3:21 PM on February 14, 2002

Do you have a webcam, bingo, or do you just like to watch?

I like to watch, so maybe I'm off-base. But the URLs under the pics were for sites where the girls do a lot more for the general public than they were in those pics. And at least one of the pics definitely goes with its url. The discussion on the message board connected to the site also supports the idea that these girls show themselves on camera for the general population.
posted by bingo at 3:23 PM on February 14, 2002

O-"foot in mouth"-willis wrote:
What I'm saying is these girls aren't necessarily the poor little innocents being exploited by the big bad man as you seem to be indicating.

I don't follow you. Let's de-sexualize this for a second.

If I write you an email privately, I expect that you won't publish and sell it online. It doesn't matter what is in that email, it's what you chose to do with it. There are serious legal issues of copyright and who owns those images or words shared with someone else in confidence, as well as general etiquette that you shouldn't broadcast (and make money) off other's content without their consent.
posted by mathowie at 3:48 PM on February 14, 2002

Mmm. Foot tastes a little gamy. Needs more sauce.

I was under the impression that these were regular old webcams that these fine upstanding young ladies put up on their websites, and the subject of our post here collected their less-clothed moments - which would be the difference between a 1-on-1 chat deal or breast baring at Mardi Gras.
posted by owillis at 4:11 PM on February 14, 2002

Matt, I think you're making a different argument than some other are above. You're looking at it as an intellectual property rights violation ... insofar as pics of girls flashing their tits can be considered "intellectual property", anyway. And you're probably right on those terms, though I wouldn't bet the house on winning any case that might theoretically be brought over something like this, because I know that legally, the receipient of someone you send a postal letter to does have rights to do with that letter as he pleases, to a certain extent.

But the others getting on Oliver's case seem be looking at it purely as a matter of sexual exploitation. And he's got a legitimate argument on that point; these girls are no innocents. It's not an excuse for what this guy's doing, but we need to admit there's plenty of sleaziness going around on all sides here.

In any case, I have to say my first thought here was: I sure hope none of these girls are planning on entering the business world when they grow up, because these sites of theirs, and the things they've said and done on them, aren't going to magically disappear the day the decide they've gotten bored with being camgirls and pull the plug. A lot of potential employers will find out about their exhibitionist websites, and will pass them right over as a result, whether it's legal or not.
posted by aaron at 4:19 PM on February 14, 2002

Matt, I think you're making a different argument than some other are above. You're looking at it as an intellectual property rights violation ... insofar as pics of girls flashing their tits can be considered "intellectual property", anyway

I think these images are dicey any IP way you slice it. Can I sell a CD burned with 1000 images of jennicam? How about images from the KottkeKam? What about images from the Mardi Gras cam on Bourbon Street? I can't sell someone else's writing I copied from their website, so why should I be able to sell images taken from their site?

I don't think what the girls were wearing makes any difference when deciding whether it's legal or morally right to sell those images.

By and large, these camgirls are freaks, and I would venture to say what they're doing borderlines on thinly-veiled prostitution (buy me something off my wishlist and I'll write your name on my boob!), but I don't think anything they've done makes them "deserve" any treatment by this webpig guy.

In any case, I have to say my first thought here was: I sure hope none of these girls are planning on entering the business world

I remember reading somewhere that Nay is a 15 year old girl that doesn't attend high school, and judging from her grammar and spelling on her weblog, I doubt entering the business world is likely to come soon for her.
posted by mathowie at 4:29 PM on February 14, 2002

not to distract the convo away from Nay and her pals, but camworld, At Will employers who give reasons for termination basically lose many of their protections once they give their specific reasons.

im sorry you were let go, and im more sorry that you were either given poor advice or no advice from someone outside of your circle, but people are unfairly canned all the time.

If you had shown your fiction to the co-workers and it was of a sexual nature and they were offended by it, perhaps they could have gotten you on s-harrassment. But if they went to your site, on the company's dime, and read your fiction instead of working, that shows me that they are the one's who are doing wrong.

writing fiction on a personal site (like skateboarding) is not a crime.

Your boss should have consulted the lawyers before ever speaking to you, and then he should have given no reason, just the standard, "i'm sorry i have to let you go, here's your check." we live in a mixed-up world run by lawyers and their lawyers, i only wished you had sued them for unfair termination because they were IMO in the wrong.
posted by tsarfan at 5:13 PM on February 14, 2002

Big Picture:
Actually, this is a handy metaphor for the way the entire notion of privacy is becoming irrelevant. Cameras are everywhere, and soon they will be in the subsets of everywhere. Random data mining has become a sanctioned addendum to the business ethic. Already, all of us quietly trust that the information overlords will be discreet with our ever-growing profiles. Not much difference, really, between these camgirls and the rest of us - except that our eventual betrayal will be incremental and somewhat less spectacular.

Small Picture:
These girls are not nearly as dumb or as gullible as many of you seem to suppose. They did not send this guy porn, for crissake - they really just sort of toyed with him. He is the one who looks like an idiot. This is the best his Svengali schtick could come up with? Pathetic. Should he have gotten fired? Of course, but mainly for his lack of emotional maturity, his astonishing stupidity, and his selfish, ego-driven lack of judgement. And honestly, and to my own intellectual discredit, my reaction to a 30 year-old man-child fooling hot and heavy with a group of very young girls is disdainful disgust - IOW, I wouldn't want him working around me.

Personally, I can't find much wrong with the camgirl phenomenon. It's not porn. Some exhibitionism, some fringe capitalism, and except for exciting the occasional prurient nutcase, it seems mostly harmless. And there's a peculiar honesty about it - the sites seem able to elicit empathy and personal interest in a way that this medium usually makes quite impossible. (No, I'm not a fan - but these discussions turn up here and there, now and then, and when they do, I go and look around - and I usually grow an odd, bemused little smile. Go figger.) The blog comments are often refreshingly real, immediate, colorful, rich in local slang, and free of the over-processing that causes much of the commentary at "literate" sites to homogenize into a tasteless tofu. They're anti-anal, in the metaphysical sense.

I am also disappointed that an incident this puny can still elicit calls to tag and ring all of us loutish brute boys. Healthy guys are fascinated by attractive young women. An important but usually unmentioned upside to this fascination is our very real instinct to protect and to nurture and to treasure. As we attempt to discourage that instinctive fascination, we are losing some of its attendant benefits.
posted by Opus Dark at 6:41 PM on February 14, 2002

By and large, these camgirls are freaks, and I would venture to say what they're doing borderlines on thinly-veiled prostitution (buy me something off my wishlist and I'll write your name on my boob!),

Where's the sex? Would you describe a 35 year old housewife running a porn site with videos of her and her husband doing the nasty as prostitution? I wouldn't, and I don't think that most people would. I'm not saying it's not icky, but prostitution is fairly strictly defined.

but I don't think anything they've done makes them "deserve" any treatment by this webpig guy.

They're putting their private lives on the web with the intention of attracting attention from strangers. They'd like for the attention to be positive, but they can't expect for that to always be the case. If it really bothers them, they can assert copyright protection for their images and threaten to sue. WebPig may successfully claim fair use protection, but that's the nature of the law.
posted by jaek at 7:07 PM on February 14, 2002