Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
really? for the first time, a legal analysis was offered explaining the liability issues. if DirectNIC was wrong... then they are wrong. Just because a band of idiots that didn't like something got together to express thier displeasure without addressing the relevant facts, doesn't mean they were right at that moment either.
|
Plus we can take Mr. Douglas's comments and put it with the "no 2257 inspections" protection that FSC promised and file it under "good intentions".
Mr Douglas does not address the ToS from Directnic, the terms under which the domain was leased. The only ones who can determine Directnic's liability in the issue would be in a court of law, and any action does to mitigate that liability would work in their favor at a future point.
Mr Douglas may be correct, but it isn't his business and his personal pocketbook on the line. If he was working for Directnic, was licensed to practice law in that state, and was privy to the information that Directnic is faced with, I suspect his opinion might be somewhat different.