|
Brujah, with due respect man, it is very difficult to discuss anything about legal on here because so many people seem ignorant of the basics of things like contract law, business law, and criminal law. They all run around like chickens with their heads cut off yelling "PRIVACY VIOlATION! YOU ARE NOT THE POLICE! NO 2257 CHECKS!" without even truly knowing what they are talking about.
A photo ID with only the image and the date of birth showing is not a privacy violation (it better not be, because that is how most content was delivered for years). I have content purchased in 96 or 97 with those exact types of documents attached. I sure hope they didn't violate privacy! Considering I wouldn't know the model name, address, or other information, I don't suspect their privacy got violated.
Issues of contract law, ToS, and registration agreements are for the lawyers to figure out in civil court. From my point of view, there is nothing in the Directnic agreement that seems to be an issue, and most if not all of the other registrars have similar clauses. Nobody can force Directnic (or anyone else) to offer registration services to illegal sites. When in doubt, and with complaint in hand, Directnic is within their contractual right to ask for verification of this to prove that their contract has not been violated.
I suspect that a sworn statement would have been enough to handle this. I suspect if Slick had picked up the phone first rather than heading directly to GFY, he might have found this out for himself.
Too much of what is in these threads is people with little understanding of the laws that govern such agreements peeing into the wind to fan the flames. At that point, Peaches is pretty much right to say "children". People need to understand more before they start randomly pissing on things.
|