[I] Real-life solutions to sitcom-esque problems

[James Mitchelhill]

Sometimes in life the strangest and most contrived plot-lines occur, which
makes me wonder if we're not all living in a sit-com. This is one of those
times. Unfortunately, real life has a tendency to not end each episode with
everyone happy as the credits roll and people have a bad habit of getting
hurt. So I'm looking for a little advice, because this situation, despite
its comedic potential, could go very wrong.

One of my friends accidentally stumbled on a piece of... uh... adult film,
available over a file-sharing network that appears to feature one of our
female friends. Having now seen parts of this myself, it's obvious that
this is either our friend or someone who looks exactly like her.

To make things worse, the film appears to have been made secretly by the
man involved.

I have no doubt that if our friend knew of this film she'd be deeply hurt
by it. Given that there's no way of stopping its continued distribution,
I'm not sure what good telling her about it would do.

But I also wonder if she doesn't have a right to know that someone has
abused her trust like this. And given that the making of the film was
probably illegal she might want to take some kind of legal action against
the maker.

Also, not telling her about is would be, to some extent, lying to her. And
I could also see her being hurt if she later finds out that I was aware of
this and didn't say anything.

Whoever's writing this sitcom has a lot to answer for.

Women of AFP: If it were you in this film, would you want to know?

Frankly, I'm a little fazed by this whole situation. If anyone has any
suggestions, please put them forward. (Wait... this is AFP. The hard part
would be stopping you.)

[SteveD]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:48:29 +0100, James Mitchelhill
<***@disorderfeed.net> wrote:

She has email? Can you send a message from an anonymous email service with
a URL to the video, phrasing the message in such a way as to avoid both
computer and human spam-filters?

There's probably a flaw in this plan somewhere.


-SteveD

[Torak]

Post by SteveD
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:48:29 +0100, James Mitchelhill
She has email? Can you send a message from an anonymous email service with
a URL to the video, phrasing the message in such a way as to avoid both
computer and human spam-filters?
There's probably a flaw in this plan somewhere.

OTOH, if I got an anonymous email saying "I recognised you in this
video", that would sound an awful lot like "...so I obviously know what
you look like, and I probably know where you live, too". That'd worry me.

It'd probably be best to just tell her directly - or get the person who
actually found the video to tell her.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Torak

Post by SteveD
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:48:29 +0100, James Mitchelhill
She has email? Can you send a message from an anonymous email service with
a URL to the video, phrasing the message in such a way as to avoid both
computer and human spam-filters?
There's probably a flaw in this plan somewhere.

OTOH, if I got an anonymous email saying "I recognised you in this
video", that would sound an awful lot like "...so I obviously know what
you look like, and I probably know where you live, too". That'd worry me.

How about: "I'm one of your friends, but I'd rather you didn't know who
found this, but if you really want to know, then ask and I'll tell
you."

You'd also have to disguise your writing style.

Incidentally, it isn't a genre where I'll admit to experience, but it
is my understanding that there are video productions where the Oohs and
Ughs and Oh-Dieter-eet-ees-so-beeg are recorded separately by different
people. It's a living.

[Robert Carnegie]

it is my understanding that there are video productions where the Oohs and
Ughs and Oh-Dieter-eet-ees-so-beeg are recorded separately by different
people.

And I was about to come back and say "That isn't the word I meant to
use, would this be better", then it occurred to me that I'd be shooting
myself in the foot /twice/.

So, anyway...

"Women of AFP"...

...that was only the calendar shoot, right?? :-)

( *BANG* "Ow! My foot!")

[8'FED]

Post by James Mitchelhill
But I also wonder if she doesn't have a right to know that someone has
abused her trust like this. And given that the making of the film was
probably illegal she might want to take some kind of legal action against
the maker.

[...]

Post by James Mitchelhill
Women of AFP: If it were you in this film, would you want to know?

I'm not a woman, but I know I'd want to be told. I think the anonymous
tip-off suggestion is a bad one.

I'd also offer to help in any way I could, e.g. with respect to the
legal action.

I don't know what communication channels are available, but if there's
a choice, email might be a tad impersonal. With a more personal
medium, such as the phone or even a visit, you could soften the
emotional blow by expressing your support and understanding in
realtime.

That's only my opinion. I hope you get replies from women soon.

Adrian.

[Eric Jarvis]

Post by James Mitchelhill
Sometimes in life the strangest and most contrived plot-lines occur, which
makes me wonder if we're not all living in a sit-com. This is one of those
times. Unfortunately, real life has a tendency to not end each episode with
everyone happy as the credits roll and people have a bad habit of getting
hurt. So I'm looking for a little advice, because this situation, despite
its comedic potential, could go very wrong.
One of my friends accidentally stumbled on a piece of... uh... adult film,
available over a file-sharing network that appears to feature one of our
female friends. Having now seen parts of this myself, it's obvious that
this is either our friend or someone who looks exactly like her.
To make things worse, the film appears to have been made secretly by the
man involved.
I have no doubt that if our friend knew of this film she'd be deeply hurt
by it. Given that there's no way of stopping its continued distribution,
I'm not sure what good telling her about it would do.
But I also wonder if she doesn't have a right to know that someone has
abused her trust like this. And given that the making of the film was
probably illegal she might want to take some kind of legal action against
the maker.
Also, not telling her about is would be, to some extent, lying to her. And
I could also see her being hurt if she later finds out that I was aware of
this and didn't say anything.
Whoever's writing this sitcom has a lot to answer for.
Women of AFP: If it were you in this film, would you want to know?
Frankly, I'm a little fazed by this whole situation. If anyone has any
suggestions, please put them forward. (Wait... this is AFP. The hard part
would be stopping you.)

She has the right to know. She's the person being harmed, therefore she
has to be the one deciding what action should be taken. I'm pretty sure
that it's illegal to distribute something like that without permission of
those involved. However the longer it's freely available the harder it
will be to prosecute, as well as increasing the possibility of somebody
seeing it she'd rather didn't.

I think it's a case where anything other than brutal honesty will simply
make everything more complicated.

[esmi]

Post by James Mitchelhill
One of my friends accidentally stumbled on a piece of... uh... adult film,
available over a file-sharing network that appears to feature one of our
female friends. Having now seen parts of this myself, it's obvious that
this is either our friend or someone who looks exactly like her.

<snip>

Post by James Mitchelhill
Women of AFP: If it were you in this film, would you want to know?

Yes! Absolutely. Finding out about it later and then realising that my
friends knew about it would be far worse.

[Clare]

Post by esmi

Post by James Mitchelhill
One of my friends accidentally stumbled on a piece of... uh... adult film,
available over a file-sharing network that appears to feature one of our
female friends. Having now seen parts of this myself, it's obvious that
this is either our friend or someone who looks exactly like her.

<snip>

Post by James Mitchelhill
Women of AFP: If it were you in this film, would you want to know?

Yes! Absolutely. Finding out about it later and then realising that my
friends knew about it would be far worse.
esmi

Seconded. And possibly promising to accompany her to the police
station and hand over any evidence you have of who took the film would
be a good idea, though you may find yourself under embarrassing
scrutiny for a while. Just don't fuss her or rush her into that if she
doesn't want to.

Best of luck, and I hope you save her from discovering that everyone
she knows has seen it. If it turns out to be her doppelganger, at
least she is prepared if she gets funny looks in the street!

BTW - if I knew someone had filmed a friend of mine secretly like that,
and I caught up with him, he would definitely regret even thinking
about it, and the same would go for anyone forwarding it on: if they
know her too and claim to be "friends" they ought to be - well, bl**dy
ashamed, for a very weak start.

[Jeff Howell]

Post by James Mitchelhill
One of my friends accidentally stumbled on a piece of... uh... adult film,
available over a file-sharing network that appears to feature one of our
female friends. Having now seen parts of this myself, it's obvious that
this is either our friend or someone who looks exactly like her.
To make things worse, the film appears to have been made secretly by the
man involved.
I have no doubt that if our friend knew of this film she'd be deeply hurt
by it. Given that there's no way of stopping its continued distribution,
I'm not sure what good telling her about it would do.

Better than someone who *isn't* a friend recognizing her and bringing up
the subject, yes? If it's on a file-sharing network, it will
doubtlessly just continue to spread.

Post by James Mitchelhill
But I also wonder if she doesn't have a right to know that someone has
abused her trust like this. And given that the making of the film was
probably illegal she might want to take some kind of legal action against
the maker.
Also, not telling her about is would be, to some extent, lying to her. And
I could also see her being hurt if she later finds out that I was aware of
this and didn't say anything.

Should probably tell her. It's *possible* it was posted with her
knowledge, but from what you're saying that's not terribly likely..
She'll likely be able to figure out who did it and take legal action.
It's possible that she's not the only person who's been taped by this
individual.. putting a stop to it now before any further women are
victimized would be a very good thing indeed.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Jeff Howell
Better than someone who *isn't* a friend recognizing her and bringing up
the subject, yes? If it's on a file-sharing network, it will doubtlessly just
continue to spread.

Um... I'm not sure how many people use their broadband connections
/this/ way.

In fact, I would be reasonably confident that if I appeared in an
"adult video" online, no one I know would mention it to me. As it is,
I haven't made one, and no one's asked me to.

[Arthur Hagen]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Jeff Howell
Better than someone who *isn't* a friend recognizing her and
bringing up
the subject, yes? If it's on a file-sharing network, it will
doubtlessly just continue to spread.

Um... I'm not sure how many people use their broadband connections
/this/ way.

From my days running an ISP, and extrapolating from what was in the web
proxy caches to today's faster connections, I'd say *most*.

Regards,

[Pudde Fjord]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Jeff Howell
Better than someone who *isn't* a friend recognizing her and bringing up
the subject, yes? If it's on a file-sharing network, it will doubtlessly just
continue to spread.

Um... I'm not sure how many people use their broadband connections
/this/ way.
In fact, I would be reasonably confident that if I appeared in an
"adult video" online, no one I know would mention it to me. As it is,
I haven't made one, and no one's asked me to.

But you don't know if anybody has made a clandestine one until you see
it or hear about it. And that's the situation that the original poster
is referring to...

Pudde.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Pudde Fjord

Post by Robert Carnegie
In fact, I would be reasonably confident that if I appeared in an
"adult video" online, no one I know would mention it to me. As it is,
I haven't made one, and no one's asked me to.

But you don't know if anybody has made a clandestine one until you see
it or hear about it. And that's the situation that the original poster
is referring to...

Well, it comes down to whether you're boffing someone who knows how to
use a video camera, and who has some belief that other people would
like to observe the proceedings. I believe I can rule that out. But I
also stick to this: it wouldn't come back to me - and that applies to
the clandestine video, as well.

Incidentally, isn't that also a crime taken fairly seriously in many
places? So you'd suppose that it's more likely that a "hidden camera"
recording will be pre-arranged and consented to. It's much easier to
do that way as well, I'm sure. No fiddling around getting the subject
to be /just/ in view through the cracked-open wardrobe door, that sort
of thing.

[Pudde Fjord]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Pudde Fjord

Post by Robert Carnegie
In fact, I would be reasonably confident that if I appeared in an
"adult video" online, no one I know would mention it to me. As it is,
I haven't made one, and no one's asked me to.

But you don't know if anybody has made a clandestine one until you see
it or hear about it. And that's the situation that the original poster
is referring to...

Well, it comes down to whether you're boffing someone who knows how to
use a video camera, and who has some belief that other people would
like to observe the proceedings. I believe I can rule that out. But I
also stick to this: it wouldn't come back to me - and that applies to
the clandestine video, as well.
Incidentally, isn't that also a crime taken fairly seriously in many
places? So you'd suppose that it's more likely that a "hidden camera"
recording will be pre-arranged and consented to. It's much easier to
do that way as well, I'm sure. No fiddling around getting the subject
to be /just/ in view through the cracked-open wardrobe door, that sort
of thing.

I don't know, but I've seen a video camera behind a one-way mirror in a
semi-public shower once. It had been there for months before someone
found out about it.

No wonder the landlord preferred female boarders...

Pudde.

[SteveD]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 06:07:47 +0200, Pudde Fjord

Post by Pudde Fjord
I don't know, but I've seen a video camera behind a one-way mirror in a
semi-public shower once. It had been there for months before someone
found out about it.

An episode of _Ultraviolet_ showed a video camera which had been set up in
the shell of a sound system speaker placed on top of a wardrobe. Its field
of view through the speaker grille covered the entire room, and the camera
was placed so that no direct light (from window or lightbulb) could fall
on the lens.

And even if it had, it's not unexpected to have a speaker system contain
metal or glass parts, so it may well have been overlooked.


-SteveD

[graham]

Hi there,

On 12 Sep 2006 18:54:08 -0700, "Robert Carnegie"

Post by Robert Carnegie
Incidentally, isn't that also a crime taken fairly seriously in many
places? So you'd suppose that it's more likely that a "hidden camera"
recording will be pre-arranged and consented to. It's much easier to
do that way as well, I'm sure. No fiddling around getting the subject
to be /just/ in view through the cracked-open wardrobe door, that sort
of thing.

Sexual Offences Act 2003:

67 Voyeurism

(1) A person commits an offence if-

(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he
observes another person doing a private act, and

(b) he knows that the other person does not consent to being
observed for his sexual gratification.

(2) A person commits an offence if-

(a) he operates equipment with the intention of enabling another
person to observe, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification,
a third person (B) doing a private act, and

(b) he knows that B does not consent to his operating equipment
with that intention.

(3) A person commits an offence if-

(a) he records another person (B) doing a private act,

(b) he does so with the intention that he or a third person
will, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an
image of B doing the act, and

(c) he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act
with that intention.

(4) A person commits an offence if he instals equipment, or
constructs or adapts a structure or part of a structure, with the
intention of enabling himself or another person to commit an offence
under subsection (1).

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable-

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or
both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 2 years.

68 Voyeurism: interpretation

(1) For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private
act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would
reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and-

(a) the person's genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or
covered only with underwear,

(b) the person is using a lavatory, or

(c) the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind
ordinarily done in public.

(2) In section 67, "structure" includes a tent, vehicle or vessel
or other temporary or movable structure.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#67

Cheers,
Graham.

Nil Flagellate Sine Lucre

[Torak]

Post by graham
On 12 Sep 2006 18:54:08 -0700, "Robert Carnegie"

Post by Robert Carnegie
Incidentally, isn't that also a crime taken fairly seriously in many
places? So you'd suppose that it's more likely that a "hidden camera"
recording will be pre-arranged and consented to. It's much easier to
do that way as well, I'm sure. No fiddling around getting the subject
to be /just/ in view through the cracked-open wardrobe door, that sort
of thing.

67 Voyeurism

<snip>

Post by graham
68 Voyeurism: interpretation
(1) For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private
act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would
reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and-
(c) the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind
ordinarily done in public.

Right. So... um... exactly what sexual acts do the Houses consider
"ordinarily done in public"?

[Arthur Hagen]

Post by Torak

Post by graham
(c) the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind
ordinarily done in public.

Right. So... um... exactly what sexual acts do the Houses consider
"ordinarily done in public"?

Dogging?

[Torak]

Post by Arthur Hagen

Post by Torak

Post by graham
(c) the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind
ordinarily done in public.

Right. So... um... exactly what sexual acts do the Houses consider
"ordinarily done in public"?

Dogging?

I've never managed to figure out what that is. I keep hearing people
mention it, though - what on earth is it?

[Alec Cawley]

Post by Torak

Post by Arthur Hagen
Dogging?

I've never managed to figure out what that is. I keep hearing people
mention it, though - what on earth is it?

Sex in semi-public places that is deliberately intended to be watched by
others. A form of exhibitionism, pandering to voyeurism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogging_%28sexual_slang%29

[Torak]

Post by Alec Cawley

Post by Torak

Post by Arthur Hagen
Dogging?

I've never managed to figure out what that is. I keep hearing people
mention it, though - what on earth is it?

Sex in semi-public places that is deliberately intended to be watched by
others. A form of exhibitionism, pandering to voyeurism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogging_%28sexual_slang%29

What a novel hobby.

Still, at least it gets people out in the fresh air, I suppose.

[Arthur Hagen]

Post by Torak

Post by Arthur Hagen
Dogging?

I've never managed to figure out what that is. I keep hearing people
mention it, though - what on earth is it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3119024.stm

Especially interesting is this part:
"However, ministers say it is not their intention to criminalise outdoor sex
in a public place that is sufficiently isolated as to make witnessing
unlikely."

Regards,

[Gid Holyoake]

In article <acc76$45172a3f$d5594586$***@news.chello.se>, Torak
generously decided to share with us..

Snippetry..

Post by Torak
Right. So... um... exactly what sexual acts do the Houses consider
"ordinarily done in public"?

Holding hands and kissing..

Gid

[The Stainless Steel Cat]

Post by Gid Holyoake
generously decided to share with us..
Snippetry..

Post by Torak
Right. So... um... exactly what sexual acts do the Houses consider
"ordinarily done in public"?

Holding hands and kissing..

Please! There may be children reading this group!

Cat.

[Torak]

Post by Gid Holyoake
Snippetry..

Post by Torak
Right. So... um... exactly what sexual acts do the Houses consider
"ordinarily done in public"?

Holding hands and kissing..

That sort of thing was banned at my old school.


Fair point, though - everyone thought the rule was stupid, so they
didn't enforce it.

[Lesley Weston]

<snip>

Post by Torak

Post by graham
(c) the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind
ordinarily done in public.

Right. So... um... exactly what sexual acts do the Houses consider
"ordinarily done in public"?

By whom? In particular, what species?

[Richard Bos]

Post by Torak

Post by graham
On 12 Sep 2006 18:54:08 -0700, "Robert Carnegie"

Post by Robert Carnegie
Incidentally, isn't that also a crime taken fairly seriously in many
places? So you'd suppose that it's more likely that a "hidden camera"
recording will be pre-arranged and consented to. It's much easier to
do that way as well, I'm sure. No fiddling around getting the subject
to be /just/ in view through the cracked-open wardrobe door, that sort
of thing.

67 Voyeurism

Much more sensible than the previously discussed "extreme porn"
proposal. For starters, all clauses involve the consent of the victim,
so "voyeuring" on someone who enjoys it is legal, as it should be.

Post by Torak

Post by graham
(c) the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind
ordinarily done in public.

Right. So... um... exactly what sexual acts do the Houses consider
"ordinarily done in public"?

Snogging. Exhibitionism, I suppose; if you open your own spotty brown
raincoat, you can't complain if someone takes a picture of it.

Richard

[graham]

Hi there,

Post by Richard Bos

Post by graham

Post by Robert Carnegie
Incidentally, isn't that also a crime taken fairly seriously in many
places? So you'd suppose that it's more likely that a "hidden camera"
recording will be pre-arranged and consented to. It's much easier to
do that way as well, I'm sure. No fiddling around getting the subject
to be /just/ in view through the cracked-open wardrobe door, that sort
of thing.

67 Voyeurism

Much more sensible than the previously discussed "extreme porn"
proposal. For starters, all clauses involve the consent of the victim,
so "voyeuring" on someone who enjoys it is legal, as it should be.

Exactly. The "extreme porn" proposal makes it an offence if it
*appears* to be 'life threatening", whether or not it actually is.

The Home Office claim that this will be an "objective test"!!

Cheers,
Graham.

Nil Flagellate Sine Lucre

[jester]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:09:49 +0100, graham

Post by graham
Hi there,
67 Voyeurism
(1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he
observes another person doing a private act, and
(b) he knows that the other person does not consent to being
observed for his sexual gratification.

Interesting wording.
It's an offence if you do know they *don't* consent, not if you don't know
that they *do* consent. Theoretically "They didn't tell me they didn't
want to be recorded" is a defence.

Post by graham
68 Voyeurism: interpretation
(1) For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private
act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would
reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and-
(c) the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind
ordinarily done in public.

I bet they don't list those.

[Anastasia]

Post by jester
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:09:49 +0100, graham

Post by graham
Hi there,
67 Voyeurism
(1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he
observes another person doing a private act, and
(b) he knows that the other person does not consent to being
observed for his sexual gratification.

Interesting wording.
It's an offence if you do know they *don't* consent, not if you
don't know that they *do* consent. Theoretically "They didn't tell
me they didn't want to be recorded" is a defence.

Not exactly. Consent is a positive act. In the absence of saying "please
record this," there has't been consent.

That is, if the person doing the recording knows s/he hasn't had the
equivalent of a consent form (or just a "yeah, sure" from people s/he knows
well) then he knows they haven't given consent.

[jester]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:29:09 -0400, Anastasia

Post by Anastasia

Post by jester
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:09:49 +0100, graham

Post by graham
Hi there,
67 Voyeurism
(1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he
observes another person doing a private act, and
(b) he knows that the other person does not consent to being
observed for his sexual gratification.

Interesting wording.
It's an offence if you do know they *don't* consent, not if you
don't know that they *do* consent. Theoretically "They didn't tell
me they didn't want to be recorded" is a defence.

Not exactly. Consent is a positive act. In the absence of saying "please
record this," there has't been consent.

Hmm, you're right, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised at somebody
trying it.
I guess it also depends on the definitions of the words as used by
lawyers, which isn't always the same as the rest of us.

[Jeff Howell]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Jeff Howell
Better than someone who *isn't* a friend recognizing her and bringing up
the subject, yes? If it's on a file-sharing network, it will doubtlessly just
continue to spread.

Um... I'm not sure how many people use their broadband connections
/this/ way.
In fact, I would be reasonably confident that if I appeared in an
"adult video" online, no one I know would mention it to me. As it is,
I haven't made one, and no one's asked me to.

Well, let's see.. a significant portion of the bandwidth of the Internet
is used by file sharing networks.. (a statistic that may have been made
up, but which I heard about a year ago was that BitTorrent had reached
the point of taking up about 1/3 the bandwidth being used..)

And a fairly decent portion of what's shared is pornographic in nature.
This is easily checked by anyone who doubts, but be warned that it's
mostly probably not very pleasant..

So I'd have to say a very large percentage of people use their broadband
connections that way.

Also.. if this thread is any indication, just because you don't know
you've been in one doesn't mean you haven't. Well. Alright, probably
someone who's never had sex can be pretty certain of not being in an
adult video. Probably.

[Torak]

Post by Jeff Howell
Also.. if this thread is any indication, just because you don't know
you've been in one doesn't mean you haven't. Well. Alright, probably
someone who's never had sex can be pretty certain of not being in an
adult video. Probably.

Not with modern face replacement effects.

[Jeff Howell]

Post by Torak

Post by Jeff Howell
Also.. if this thread is any indication, just because you don't know
you've been in one doesn't mean you haven't. Well. Alright, probably
someone who's never had sex can be pretty certain of not being in an
adult video. Probably.

Not with modern face replacement effects.

Indeed. Although that's a level of malevolent intent I'd rather not
explore..

I knew there was a reason I tossed in the 'probably'.

[Torak]

Post by Jeff Howell

Post by Torak

Post by Jeff Howell
Also.. if this thread is any indication, just because you don't know
you've been in one doesn't mean you haven't. Well. Alright, probably
someone who's never had sex can be pretty certain of not being in an
adult video. Probably.

Not with modern face replacement effects.

Indeed. Although that's a level of malevolent intent I'd rather not
explore..

Yeah. I hope nobody else has thought of it. And it certainly needs some
level of special effects knowledge. But there'll almost certainly be
some bastard who'll try it.

[Jeff Howell]

Post by Torak

Post by Jeff Howell

Post by Torak

Post by Jeff Howell
Also.. if this thread is any indication, just because you don't know
you've been in one doesn't mean you haven't. Well. Alright,
probably someone who's never had sex can be pretty certain of not
being in an adult video. Probably.

Not with modern face replacement effects.

Indeed. Although that's a level of malevolent intent I'd rather not
explore..

Yeah. I hope nobody else has thought of it. And it certainly needs some
level of special effects knowledge. But there'll almost certainly be
some bastard who'll try it.

Yep. Lord knows there are enough faked *photos* of celebs out there.
Probably only a matter of time before there are faked videos..

[Torak]

Post by Jeff Howell

Post by Torak

Post by Jeff Howell

Post by Torak

Post by Jeff Howell
Also.. if this thread is any indication, just because you don't
know you've been in one doesn't mean you haven't. Well. Alright,
probably someone who's never had sex can be pretty certain of not
being in an adult video. Probably.

Not with modern face replacement effects.

Indeed. Although that's a level of malevolent intent I'd rather not
explore..

Yeah. I hope nobody else has thought of it. And it certainly needs
some level of special effects knowledge. But there'll almost certainly
be some bastard who'll try it.

Yep. Lord knows there are enough faked *photos* of celebs out there.
Probably only a matter of time before there are faked videos..

Seen some of them. Generally really badly done. For the record, they
tend to be on the filesharing networks with titles like
"CQB_airsoft_game_July2005.avi" and so on.

Why yes, it was a delightful surprise when I opened that file in the
living room.


Anyway, on a Leelee Sobieski forum I frequent the question of fakes
arose, someone said "No, she has done nude photos, I've seen 'em." I
pointed out that they were really easy to fake, someone else said "No,
you'd be able to tell."

So I did some fakes - *civilised* fakes, basically turning her into a
SWAT officer and so on - to prove it. A few of them are linked below -
and they certainly brought people round to my point of view. As I
pointed out to them, I'm not even particularly good at this stuff.

I re-uploaded the page I made... bear in mind, this page, as well as the
pics, was made a few years ago now. It's not a very well-made page. But
it'll do the job.

<http://www.largssystems.com/awmp/toshow/leelee.php>

[Julian Hall]

Post by Torak

Post by Jeff Howell

Post by Torak

Post by Jeff Howell

Post by Torak

Post by Jeff Howell
Also.. if this thread is any indication, just because you don't
know you've been in one doesn't mean you haven't. Well. Alright,
probably someone who's never had sex can be pretty certain of not
being in an adult video. Probably.

Not with modern face replacement effects.

Indeed. Although that's a level of malevolent intent I'd rather not
explore..

Yeah. I hope nobody else has thought of it. And it certainly needs
some level of special effects knowledge. But there'll almost certainly
be some bastard who'll try it.

Yep. Lord knows there are enough faked *photos* of celebs out there.
Probably only a matter of time before there are faked videos..

Seen some of them. Generally really badly done. For the record, they
tend to be on the filesharing networks with titles like
"CQB_airsoft_game_July2005.avi" and so on.
Why yes, it was a delightful surprise when I opened that file in the
living room.
Anyway, on a Leelee Sobieski forum I frequent the question of fakes
arose, someone said "No, she has done nude photos, I've seen 'em." I
pointed out that they were really easy to fake, someone else said "No,
you'd be able to tell."
So I did some fakes - *civilised* fakes, basically turning her into a
SWAT officer and so on - to prove it. A few of them are linked below -
and they certainly brought people round to my point of view. As I
pointed out to them, I'm not even particularly good at this stuff.
I re-uploaded the page I made... bear in mind, this page, as well as the
pics, was made a few years ago now. It's not a very well-made page. But
it'll do the job.
<http://www.largssystems.com/awmp/toshow/leelee.php>

A quick check of the available NG listings comes up with
alt.binaries.pictures.nude.celebrities.fake plus a repost group.

A randon sampling suggests that the faking *can* be of extremely high
quality.

[Torak]

Post by Julian Hall

Post by Torak
Anyway, on a Leelee Sobieski forum I frequent the question of fakes
arose, someone said "No, she has done nude photos, I've seen 'em." I
pointed out that they were really easy to fake, someone else said "No,
you'd be able to tell."
So I did some fakes - *civilised* fakes, basically turning her into a
SWAT officer and so on - to prove it. A few of them are linked below -
and they certainly brought people round to my point of view. As I
pointed out to them, I'm not even particularly good at this stuff.
I re-uploaded the page I made... bear in mind, this page, as well as the
pics, was made a few years ago now. It's not a very well-made page. But
it'll do the job.
<http://www.largssystems.com/awmp/toshow/leelee.php>

A quick check of the available NG listings comes up with
alt.binaries.pictures.nude.celebrities.fake plus a repost group.
A randon sampling suggests that the faking *can* be of extremely high
quality.

I think I'll just take your word for that. I have no great urge to see
any more of those than I already accidentally have.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Torak

Post by Jeff Howell

Post by Torak

Post by Jeff Howell
Also.. if this thread is any indication, just because you don't know
you've been in one doesn't mean you haven't. Well. Alright, probably
someone who's never had sex can be pretty certain of not being in an
adult video. Probably.

Not with modern face replacement effects.

Indeed. Although that's a level of malevolent intent I'd rather not
explore..

Yeah. I hope nobody else has thought of it. And it certainly needs some
level of special effects knowledge. But there'll almost certainly be
some bastard who'll try it.

I think there have been two different UK TV comedy shows consisting of
scrupulously realistic imitations of celebrities in curious roles. But
not with video face technology, usually, with make-up and
impersonations. And of course there's Rory Bremner and the like.

It can be dirtied up - for instance like fairly crude cellphone video,
security camera, or paparazzi photography - so that you don't see
clearly that it isn't the person claimed.

I'm not up with state-of-the-art, but a non-sexual moment in Jonathan
Ross's _Japanorama_ series, evidently taken from a video game, looked
to me for a moment like actual video, but it wasn't - it was
computer-thingy. So I'm guessing that it can be done to order.

Personally directed, it would be an abuse. But apart from that kind of
thing, if you're reasonably confident that people who have access to
your bedroom and bathroom are not particularly interested in home films
of that sort, then you're safe enough.

Is there an actual market for films of members of the public using
restrooms? It can't be large?

[Torak]

Post by Robert Carnegie
Is there an actual market for films of members of the public using
restrooms? It can't be large?

Um... apparently so. Don't ask how I know, except that it involves a
file erroneously labelled "The West Wing - 7x13 - The Cold.avi"

Urgh. Thanks for bringing that memory back. Where's the brain bleach
these days?

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Torak

Post by Robert Carnegie
Is there an actual market for films of members of the public using
restrooms? It can't be large?

Um... apparently so. Don't ask how I know, except that it involves a
file erroneously labelled "The West Wing - 7x13 - The Cold.avi"

Did it look like a television executive? Putting fake files into file
sharing networks is an established idea from the music MP3 side of the
business.

And is there evidence that people want to see this material and even
will pay for it...

[Torak]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Torak

Post by Robert Carnegie
Is there an actual market for films of members of the public using
restrooms? It can't be large?

Um... apparently so. Don't ask how I know, except that it involves a
file erroneously labelled "The West Wing - 7x13 - The Cold.avi"

Did it look like a television executive? Putting fake files into file

You know, I didn't wait around to check.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Torak

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Torak

Post by Robert Carnegie
Is there an actual market for films of members of the public using
restrooms? It can't be large?

Um... apparently so. Don't ask how I know, except that it involves a
file erroneously labelled "The West Wing - 7x13 - The Cold.avi"

Did it look like a television executive? Putting fake files into file

You know, I didn't wait around to check.

Well, did it look like an executive restroom?

(Never mind.)

[CCA]

Post by Torak

Post by Jeff Howell
Also.. if this thread is any indication, just because you don't know
you've been in one doesn't mean you haven't. Well. Alright, probably
someone who's never had sex can be pretty certain of not being in an
adult video. Probably.

Not with modern face replacement effects.

And not if someone's rigged up a camera to watch you getting changed,
having bath or shower, or whatever.

CCA

[James Mitchelhill]

Post by James Mitchelhill
Sometimes in life the strangest and most contrived plot-lines occur, which
makes me wonder if we're not all living in a sit-com. This is one of those
times. Unfortunately, real life has a tendency to not end each episode with
everyone happy as the credits roll and people have a bad habit of getting
hurt. So I'm looking for a little advice, because this situation, despite
its comedic potential, could go very wrong.
One of my friends accidentally stumbled on a piece of... uh... adult film,
available over a file-sharing network that appears to feature one of our
female friends. Having now seen parts of this myself, it's obvious that
this is either our friend or someone who looks exactly like her.

<snip>

I'm following up to my original post rather than to everyone else's good
advice individually (thank you, everyone, had this gone very wrong I'd have
had plenty of people to blame ;)

Thankfully the situation is now resolved and, contrary to my expectations,
has done so in classic sitcom style.

The audio on the file was incredibly unclear, and I didn't want to make the
mistake of scaring the hell out of my friend without being damn certain
that it was her and not some kind of bizarre pornographic doppelganger.
After extracting the audio and cleaning it up a bit, it turns out that
whoever it is in the film has completely the wrong accent.

It's still deeply disturbing though.

[Daibhid Ceanaideach]

The time: 11 Sep 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by SteveD
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:48:29 +0100, James Mitchelhill

Post by James Mitchelhill
Sometimes in life the strangest and most contrived
plot-lines occur, which makes me wonder if we're not all
living in a sit-com. This is one of those times.
Unfortunately, real life has a tendency to not end each
episode with everyone happy as the credits roll and people
have a bad habit of getting hurt. So I'm looking for a
little advice, because this situation, despite its comedic
potential, could go very wrong.
One of my friends accidentally stumbled on a piece of...
uh... adult film, available over a file-sharing network
that appears to feature one of our female friends. Having
now seen parts of this myself, it's obvious that this is
either our friend or someone who looks exactly like her.

<snip>
I'm following up to my original post rather than to
everyone else's good advice individually (thank you,
everyone, had this gone very wrong I'd have had plenty of
people to blame ;)
Thankfully the situation is now resolved and, contrary to
my expectations, has done so in classic sitcom style.
The audio on the file was incredibly unclear, and I didn't
want to make the mistake of scaring the hell out of my
friend without being damn certain that it was her and not
some kind of bizarre pornographic doppelganger. After
extracting the audio and cleaning it up a bit, it turns out
that whoever it is in the film has completely the wrong
accent.
It's still deeply disturbing though.

That's not classic sitcom style. Classic sitcom style would
have been if the friend who discovered it in the first place
had found this out, gone round to tell you, but couldn't get a
word in because you were talking the female friend.

And then he'd have run the file to prove his point, and that's
when someone's mother/the vicar[1] would have arrived...

[1]UK only.

[SteveD]

On 11 Sep 2006 20:17:54 GMT, Daibhid Ceanaideach

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
That's not classic sitcom style. Classic sitcom style would
have been if the friend who discovered it in the first place
had found this out, gone round to tell you, but couldn't get a
word in because you were talking the female friend.
And then he'd have run the file to prove his point, and that's
when someone's mother/the vicar[1] would have arrived...

While at the same time, the female friend would be accusing the poster of
deliberately searching not only for porn, but for porn with her likeness
in it, and thereby being a creepy stalker which she would tell all her
local friends and their mothers about.


-SteveD

[peachy ashie passion]

Post by esmi

Post by James Mitchelhill
Sometimes in life the strangest and most contrived plot-lines occur, which
makes me wonder if we're not all living in a sit-com. This is one of those
times. Unfortunately, real life has a tendency to not end each episode with
everyone happy as the credits roll and people have a bad habit of getting
hurt. So I'm looking for a little advice, because this situation, despite
its comedic potential, could go very wrong.
One of my friends accidentally stumbled on a piece of... uh... adult film,
available over a file-sharing network that appears to feature one of our
female friends. Having now seen parts of this myself, it's obvious that
this is either our friend or someone who looks exactly like her.

<snip>
I'm following up to my original post rather than to everyone else's good
advice individually (thank you, everyone, had this gone very wrong I'd have
had plenty of people to blame ;)
Thankfully the situation is now resolved and, contrary to my expectations,
has done so in classic sitcom style.
The audio on the file was incredibly unclear, and I didn't want to make the
mistake of scaring the hell out of my friend without being damn certain
that it was her and not some kind of bizarre pornographic doppelganger.
After extracting the audio and cleaning it up a bit, it turns out that
whoever it is in the film has completely the wrong accent.
It's still deeply disturbing though.

Indeed. And therefore, I'd still strongly suggest you tell her about
it, because if the resemblance is this strong, she may hear about this
elsewhere.

[Peter Ellis]

Post by James Mitchelhill
Thankfully the situation is now resolved and, contrary to my
expectations, has done so in classic sitcom style.
The audio on the file was incredibly unclear, and I didn't want to
make the mistake of scaring the hell out of my friend without being
damn certain that it was her and not some kind of bizarre
pornographic doppelganger. After extracting the audio and cleaning it
up a bit, it turns out that whoever it is in the film has completely
the wrong accent.

How good is your friend at accents?

Peter

[SteveD]

Post by Peter Ellis

Post by James Mitchelhill
Thankfully the situation is now resolved and, contrary to my
expectations, has done so in classic sitcom style.
The audio on the file was incredibly unclear, and I didn't want to
make the mistake of scaring the hell out of my friend without being
damn certain that it was her and not some kind of bizarre
pornographic doppelganger. After extracting the audio and cleaning it
up a bit, it turns out that whoever it is in the film has completely
the wrong accent.

How good is your friend at accents?

Because, you know, porn never gets overdubbed with pornier "dialogue"
before release.

[Lesley Weston]

<snip>

Post by James Mitchelhill

Post by James Mitchelhill
One of my friends accidentally stumbled on a piece of... uh... adult film,
available over a file-sharing network that appears to feature one of our
female friends. Having now seen parts of this myself, it's obvious that
this is either our friend or someone who looks exactly like her.

<snip>

Post by James Mitchelhill
The audio on the file was incredibly unclear, and I didn't want to make the
mistake of scaring the hell out of my friend without being damn certain
that it was her and not some kind of bizarre pornographic doppelganger.
After extracting the audio and cleaning it up a bit, it turns out that
whoever it is in the film has completely the wrong accent.
It's still deeply disturbing though.

Well thank goodness for that! Perhaps you should still tell her, in case she
finds out from someone who doesn't know it wasn't her. You can put it quite
differently, though, and it shouldn't be nearly so distressing for her.

[James Mitchelhill]

Post by esmi
<snip>

Post by James Mitchelhill

Post by James Mitchelhill
One of my friends accidentally stumbled on a piece of... uh... adult film,
available over a file-sharing network that appears to feature one of our
female friends.

<snip>

Post by esmi

Post by James Mitchelhill
After extracting the audio and cleaning it up a bit, it turns out that
whoever it is in the film has completely the wrong accent.
It's still deeply disturbing though.

Well thank goodness for that! Perhaps you should still tell her, in case she
finds out from someone who doesn't know it wasn't her. You can put it quite
differently, though, and it shouldn't be nearly so distressing for her.

We've told her now. Fortunately, she finds the whole thing quite funny.
Worryingly, though, she wants to see the film.

[8'FED]

Post by James Mitchelhill
We've told her now. Fortunately, she finds the whole thing quite funny.
Worryingly, though, she wants to see the film.

It never was a sitcom, but nevertheless, I like that ending. :-)

Adrian.

[Daibhid Ceanaideach]

The time: 12 Sep 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by James Mitchelhill
We've told her now. Fortunately, she finds the whole thing
quite funny. Worryingly, though, she wants to see the film.

Freeze on your stunned reaction to this, wait for the canned
laughter to die down, and roll credits...

[SteveD]

On 12 Sep 2006 10:46:21 GMT, Daibhid Ceanaideach

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 12 Sep 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by James Mitchelhill
We've told her now. Fortunately, she finds the whole thing
quite funny. Worryingly, though, she wants to see the film.

Freeze on your stunned reaction to this, wait for the canned
laughter to die down, and roll credits...

Reminds me of the "Lesbian Inferno" episode of _Coupling_, where the
female cast members force the hapless Steve (Jack Davenport) to expound on
the 'plot' (such as it is) of the porn tape discovered in his VCR. Having
already told them an extremely PG version of the premise ("No, no, it's
not porn, it's, um, a series of short... films. Artistic ones. By
lesbians."), he is forced to continue in the same vein, as their questions
become more and more pointed.


-SteveD

[Daibhid Ceanaideach]

The time: 12 Sep 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by SteveD
On 12 Sep 2006 10:46:21 GMT, Daibhid Ceanaideach

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 12 Sep 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by James Mitchelhill
We've told her now. Fortunately, she finds the whole
thing quite funny. Worryingly, though, she wants to see
the film.

Freeze on your stunned reaction to this, wait for the
canned laughter to die down, and roll credits...

Reminds me of the "Lesbian Inferno" episode of _Coupling_,
where the female cast members force the hapless Steve (Jack
Davenport) to expound on the 'plot' (such as it is) of the
porn tape discovered in his VCR. Having already told them
an extremely PG version of the premise ("No, no, it's not
porn, it's, um, a series of short... films. Artistic ones.
By lesbians."), he is forced to continue in the same vein,
as their questions become more and more pointed.

IIRC, it wasn't so much that he was denying it was porn, he
was insisting it was porn with a *plot*, and should therefore
be considered "erotica" or something.

"And the plot is....?"

"Well, there's these... um... lesbian filmmakers, and they...
have a filmmaking compitition."

"And do *those* films have plots?"

"Um. They're more... thematic works..."

[Tiny Bulcher]

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 12 Sep 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by SteveD
On 12 Sep 2006 10:46:21 GMT, Daibhid Ceanaideach

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 12 Sep 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by James Mitchelhill
We've told her now. Fortunately, she finds the whole
thing quite funny. Worryingly, though, she wants to see
the film.

Freeze on your stunned reaction to this, wait for the
canned laughter to die down, and roll credits...

Reminds me of the "Lesbian Inferno" episode of _Coupling_,
where the female cast members force the hapless Steve (Jack
Davenport) to expound on the 'plot' (such as it is) of the
porn tape discovered in his VCR. Having already told them
an extremely PG version of the premise ("No, no, it's not
porn, it's, um, a series of short... films. Artistic ones.
By lesbians."), he is forced to continue in the same vein,
as their questions become more and more pointed.

IIRC, it wasn't so much that he was denying it was porn, he
was insisting it was porn with a *plot*, and should therefore
be considered "erotica" or something.
"And the plot is....?"
"Well, there's these... um... lesbian filmmakers, and they...
have a filmmaking compitition."
"And do *those* films have plots?"
"Um. They're more... thematic works..."

I found the whole thing quite incredible. Your girlfriend is Sarah
Alexander, why would you need porn?

--
Tiny

[Sabremeister Brian]

Post by esmi

Post by esmi
<snip>

Post by James Mitchelhill

Post by James Mitchelhill
One of my friends accidentally stumbled on a piece of... uh...
adult film, available over a file-sharing network that appears to
feature one of our female friends.

<snip>

Post by esmi

Post by James Mitchelhill
After extracting the audio and cleaning it up a bit, it turns out
that whoever it is in the film has completely the wrong accent.
It's still deeply disturbing though.

Well thank goodness for that! Perhaps you should still tell her, in
case she finds out from someone who doesn't know it wasn't her. You
can put it quite differently, though, and it shouldn't be nearly so
distressing for her.

We've told her now. Fortunately, she finds the whole thing quite
funny. Worryingly, though, she wants to see the film.

Let her see it, then. She should be able to at least confirm whether
or not it /is/ her and one of her experiences.

[James Mitchelhill]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:01:39 +0100, Sabremeister Brian wrote:

<snip>

Post by Sabremeister Brian

Post by James Mitchelhill
We've told her now. Fortunately, she finds the whole thing quite
funny. Worryingly, though, she wants to see the film.

Let her see it, then. She should be able to at least confirm whether
or not it /is/ her and one of her experiences.

We'll have to. She wanted to know if she looked good in it. She has now
seen some screenshots and it's definitely not her ("I'd never wear socks
like that!").

[Eric Jarvis]

Post by esmi
<snip>

Post by Sabremeister Brian

Post by James Mitchelhill
We've told her now. Fortunately, she finds the whole thing quite
funny. Worryingly, though, she wants to see the film.

Let her see it, then. She should be able to at least confirm whether
or not it /is/ her and one of her experiences.

We'll have to. She wanted to know if she looked good in it. She has now
seen some screenshots and it's definitely not her ("I'd never wear socks
like that!").

Now that's a classy response.

[Puck]

Post by James Mitchelhill
Whoever's writing this sitcom has a lot to answer for.

It's been done. Episode of Friends. People start complimenting Phoebe for
her work in pornographic features. Turns out it's her twin sister Ursula
working under her name.

Post by James Mitchelhill
Women of AFP: If it were you in this film, would you want to know?

Not a woman, but I have to say that I would feel betrayed, especially if I
later found out that my friends knew about this and kept silent. And how do
you know it won't happen again? If your friend isn't made aware of what a
slimeball this guy is she could end up getting compromized a second time.

The best way to inform her is a delecate matter. Normally I would consider
it the responsibility of the friend who found the film, but that could be
pretty awkward if he doesn't want to admit why he was in a position to
recieve such a film in the first place ("Pornography? What's that?). The
anonymous e-mail thing is likewise full of problems ("Hello. I have your
name, e-mail address, and naked footage of you. Just thought I'd let you
know. Ciao!").

Probably the direct approach is best. But whatever happens, she has a right
to know!

[Pudde Fjord]

Post by Puck

Post by James Mitchelhill
Whoever's writing this sitcom has a lot to answer for.

It's been done. Episode of Friends. People start complimenting Phoebe for
her work in pornographic features. Turns out it's her twin sister Ursula
working under her name.

Wasn't Ursula originally part of another sitcom? If it was still
running, was the incident referenced there?

Pudde.

[Daibhid Ceanaideach]

The time: 12 Sep 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by Pudde Fjord

Post by Puck
It's been done. Episode of Friends. People start
complimenting Phoebe for her work in pornographic
features. Turns out it's her twin sister Ursula working
under her name.

Wasn't Ursula originally part of another sitcom? If it was
still running, was the incident referenced there?

I can't believe this peice of utter trivia about a show I
never watched has stuck in my head, but I *think* Mad About
You had finished by then, but there had previously been an
episode set in the future which referenced Ursula's porn
career, and may or may not have given the Friends writers the
idea.

[CCA]

Post by Puck

Post by James Mitchelhill
Whoever's writing this sitcom has a lot to answer for.

It's been done. Episode of Friends. People start complimenting Phoebe for
her work in pornographic features. Turns out it's her twin sister Ursula
working under her name.

Phoebe: "Stop pretending to be me! And shame on you!" (To film makers)
"Shame on *all* of you! Especially...*you*, with...*that*..."
I seem to remember she later goes round to the studio and picks up
Ursula's cheques (addressed to 'Phoebe', of course), and gives them her
address to send any more on to... :-)

CCA

[Lesley Weston]

Post by James Mitchelhill
Sometimes in life the strangest and most contrived plot-lines occur, which
makes me wonder if we're not all living in a sit-com. This is one of those
times. Unfortunately, real life has a tendency to not end each episode with
everyone happy as the credits roll and people have a bad habit of getting
hurt. So I'm looking for a little advice, because this situation, despite
its comedic potential, could go very wrong.
One of my friends accidentally stumbled on a piece of... uh... adult film,
available over a file-sharing network that appears to feature one of our
female friends. Having now seen parts of this myself, it's obvious that
this is either our friend or someone who looks exactly like her.
To make things worse, the film appears to have been made secretly by the
man involved.
I have no doubt that if our friend knew of this film she'd be deeply hurt
by it. Given that there's no way of stopping its continued distribution,
I'm not sure what good telling her about it would do.
But I also wonder if she doesn't have a right to know that someone has
abused her trust like this. And given that the making of the film was
probably illegal she might want to take some kind of legal action against
the maker.
Also, not telling her about is would be, to some extent, lying to her. And
I could also see her being hurt if she later finds out that I was aware of
this and didn't say anything.
Whoever's writing this sitcom has a lot to answer for.
Women of AFP: If it were you in this film, would you want to know?
Frankly, I'm a little fazed by this whole situation. If anyone has any
suggestions, please put them forward. (Wait... this is AFP. The hard part
would be stopping you.)

I think I would want to know. It's better if her friends tell her as gently
as possible than if she finds out by accident or from an enemy, and you
can't be sure that won't happen. It seems important to make it clear that
you're on her side, though. I agree that it's a lousy sitcom - I don't think
it would make me LOL.