That video wasn't bad.Originally Posted by 1dollarboxcar
The one thing that I'll say is that I'm surprised that EZ Life would treat the leaking of the photos/videos as an open legal question on the grounds that Sarah and Victor are now producing OnlyFans content. I honestly don't see why that would change the legal status of an act that was committed prior to that happening. Is it possible that authorities would take the claim less seriously? Perhaps. It wouldn't change whether or not sharing such privately sent photos is a crime.
Even then, EZ Life claims in his video that someone offered him the photos of Sarah, which were private at the time, for $500. If Sarah and Victor produced that content and gave it to people, then they have the copyright claim to that content. With that being the case, it is indisputably illegal for someone to try to profit off of that content unless Sarah and Victor gave their consent to that person to do so. It's not even a gray area. For example, I couldn't just pay for Sarah and Victor's OnlyFans channel membership, copy all of the photos and videos, then create my own OnlyFans where I just upload THEIR photos and videos, except, I'm only charging $25 to subscribers rather than the $50 that they charge. On the other hand, if the person who attempted to sell it took the photos and videos, then there are some cases where they could sell them, but Sarah and Victor would likely need to have signed some sort of release with them, which I seriously doubt.
With that, while I can't speak as to people who shared the videos/photos with EZ Life when they were leaked or 'leaked' freely, I can definitely say that the person who offered to sell EZ Life the material for $500 indisputably committed an illegal action. The only possible exception would be if they had Sarah and Victor's permission to attempt to do so.
I'm also going to give EZ Life credit for acknowledging that anything that Sarah/Victor has ever done pales in comparison to the outlets that are doing actual scamming. From my perspective, Sarah and Victor have never victimized anyone. If simps want to give money to Sarah and she's not single (at that time), then I don't know that she has any duty of disclosure to say she's not single. It would be something different if she specifically said she was available, when such was not true, but omitting that she's not single and letting the simps give her money based on the assumption she is...I honestly don't see the problem. I mean, there IS a problem there, but it is the simps' problem.
I'm going to say that EZ Life's back must be really loose, because calling sharing pictures of yourself (that being Sarah) in a bikini at what looks to likely be a casino pool the sharing of personal information is a serious stretch. She's on camera all the time; in what world is that the sharing of personal information?
These are some of the things that I was sort of hoping to clarify with Sarah and Victor. Since the proverbial cat is out of the bag, I was hoping we could get a timeline from the channel starting to Sarah/Victor being a couple, or perhaps they were a couple the entire time. It's still possible that they were not a couple in the beginning as the channel has been around for over six years.
Anyway, I don't think they're going to talk to me anymore. Besides that, the stuff that I was most interested in discussing literally any slot channel would know, so perhaps one of the others would like to talk to me.
But, yeah, any attempt to sell that content without Sarah and Victor's consent is absolutely illegal. Would law enforcement actually do something about it? No idea. Does it matter that they are Canadian? No. I don't believe that there's an exception that says someone in the United States can commit digital crimes against other individuals provided that those other individuals are from a different country. I obviously don't know that the person is from the United States, but if ACA reported this to the FBI as they claim, they must certainly think that the person is. That being the case, if a crime was committed, it was committed by them whilst they were in the United States and they can be held accountable to that.
Reply With Quote
