directNIC statement on domains and child porn

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • darksoul
    Confirmed User
    • Apr 2002
    • 4997

    #51
    Originally posted by RawAlex
    Sorry, read again more carefully. You didn't pay attention.
    I think I'm threating you with respect, please do the same. I do pay attention
    but you seem to avoid common questions.

    Even if they allowed Slick to move his domains (ie, suggested he needed to leave) they have created their complicity in the issue. Directnic is in the position to terminate domains that may be used for distribution of CP. They cannot pass the buck to someone else because Slick is a nice guy or he didn't mean it or isn't sure.
    Let us know what gives DN the right to do an investigation. (What they can
    lawfully do is forward it to the FBI)

    From a liablity standpoint, once Directnic has the compaint in their hands, they either have to act to resolve the issue or become liable for it.
    I'm not aware of any such laws. They're not liable as long as they do their
    part of the job and that is forward the complaint to the proper authorities.

    I am sure they have been in contact with the FBI, and now they are asking for supporting documents do they can figure out if they ToS and therefore their domain registry contract has been broken. If it has been broken, they terminate the domain.
    Theres no evidence of such thing. Also DN is not even an authority in
    domains, ICANN is and I dont see them involved in this, at least nothing was
    specified.

    Leaving the domains unlocked after issuing a request like Directnic did... well, you know the domains would be transfered in a second. That wouldn't resolve the issue.

    Directnic has to do what it needs to do to protect itself, fulfill it's obligations under law and under contract (with ICANN and with Slick), and the require those people involved to fulfill their obligations in a similar manner.
    You can't put a lock on someones properties without a court order , less so
    when theres no proof of any law beeing broken, you're welcome to prove me otherwise.
    1337 5y54|)m1n: 157717888
    BM-2cUBw4B2fgiYAfjkE7JvWaJMiUXD96n9tN
    Cambooth

    Comment

    • sarettah
      see you later, I'm gone
      • Oct 2002
      • 14364

      #52
      Originally posted by dig420
      You will bow to DirectNic's command or they will take what's yours, bottom line. They don't need no steenking law.

      MikeAI is a rabid right-wing pornographer. Eventually he's going to get born again and take ALL your domains to save your soul.
      roflmfao... You owe me a new keyboard dig
      All cookies cleared!

      Comment

      • borked
        Totally Borked
        • Feb 2005
        • 6284

        #53
        Originally posted by RawAlex
        Borked, read their ToS... it's all there in black and white. It has been posted about 5 times already. Contactrually, Slick agreeed to these terms when he took the domains with Directnic.

        Darksoul: Nobody "owns" domains. Get that thought out of your head. Please also show where directnic quoted "an unexisting law". I can't find it.
        RawAlex, no.
        Unless I'm sorely mistaken, I have read and reread their ToS and under section 19: DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATIONS., the section which pertains to domain name registrations, there is NOTHING about allowing what DN has done to transpire and agree with.

        The closest is:

        # Use of Our Domain Name Registration Services.

        1. You agree that your ability to use our domain name registration services is subject to termination or suspension, and your ability to register or modify any particular domain name is subject to suspension, cancellation, or transfer:
        1. At any time pursuant to any ICANN or applicable registry operator policy now in effect or hereafter adopted;
        2. To correct mistakes by us, another accredited registrar or applicable registry operator in registering domain names, including but not limited to the correction of erroneous or inadvertent deletions of domain names, or in connection with the resolution of disputes in accordance with the ICANN Dispute Policy; or
        3. In the event of any breach of any representation, warranty, agreement or other provision of this Agreement, upon e-mail notice of such breach and the expiration of a fifteen (15) calendar day cure period.
        2. You agree not to use our Services, System, or directNIC or permit any other person or entity to use our Services, System, or directNIC for abusive purposes such as:
        1. The transmission of unsolicited, commercial e-mail?i.e., spam;
        2. High volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to a registry operator for large numbers of domain names, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations;
        3. High volume, automated, electronic, repetitive queries except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations; or
        4. The transmission of unsolicited or illegal software, including but not limited to spyware.
        5. ?Phishing.?
        6. Should we determine that you have engaged in any such abusive practices, you agree:
        1. that we may, at our sole discretion, publish your name, contact information, and I.P. address along with full header and any other information related to your abusive activities;
        2. to pay us all actual damages that can be reasonably calculated;
        3. if actual damages cannot be reasonably calculated by us because damages are often difficult to quantify, you agree to pay us liquidated damages of
        1. five U.S. dollars (US$5.00) for each item of spam or unsolicited bulk e-mail transmitted from or otherwise connected with your account and
        2. one thousand U.S. dollars (US$1,000.00) for each unsolicited illegal transmission or use of spy software; and
        4. that we may charge such damages to any accounts or credit cards used by you to purchase any of our Services.
        3. All domain names registered through us and using name servers provided by us are pointed to a parked page that may be modified at any time by us without prior notice to you and may include such things as, but not limited to:
        1. hyperlinks to additional products and services offered by registrar,
        2. advertisements for products and services offered by third-parties, and
        3. an Internet search engine interface.
        4. To see a sample parked page, please click here.
        5. If for any reason you do not wish to have the domain name you have registered pointed to a parked page, you can choose the no hosting option to disable the parked page.
        6. If you do not wish to have the domain name you have registered pointed to a parked page, you may choose to host the domain name with another hosting provider rather than using our name servers. However, despite your desire to not have a domain name parked, we will not be liable to you or anyone else for any reason whatsoever if that domain name is parked.
        Which deals only with illegal software or spam.

        For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com
        (consider figuring out the email as test #1)



        All models are wrong, but some are useful. George E.P. Box. p202

        Comment

        • darksoul
          Confirmed User
          • Apr 2002
          • 4997

          #54
          Originally posted by RawAlex
          Darksoul: Nobody "owns" domains. Get that thought out of your head. Please also show where directnic quoted "an unexisting law". I can't find it.
          You can read the first post, they pointed to a law thats proposed
          and its not even approved.
          http://news.com.com/SenatorIllegalim...tag=nefd.lede\
          .... if a new proposal in the U.S. Senate came into law.
          1337 5y54|)m1n: 157717888
          BM-2cUBw4B2fgiYAfjkE7JvWaJMiUXD96n9tN
          Cambooth

          Comment

          • DarkJedi
            No Refunds Issued.
            • Feb 2001
            • 28301

            #55

            Comment

            • darksoul
              Confirmed User
              • Apr 2002
              • 4997

              #56
              Originally posted by RawAlex
              Please also show where directnic quoted "an unexisting law". I can't find it.
              And seriously, you got the guts to tell me I dont pay attention when you
              didn't even read the link that was posted by the man himself in the first post.
              1337 5y54|)m1n: 157717888
              BM-2cUBw4B2fgiYAfjkE7JvWaJMiUXD96n9tN
              Cambooth

              Comment

              • Kimmykim
                bitchslapping zebras!!!!!
                • Jun 2001
                • 16015

                #57
                Wow, I love to see all the law degrees pop out around here.

                DirectNIC, any other registrar, any hosting company or any billing company has the right to run their business as they see fit. And to protect themselves from legal jeopardy where needed.

                Their request really isn't any different than your billing company asking you to provide documentation for a particular model or group of models, and that happens more frequently than you would imagine.

                Once a complaint has been received -- whether its DMCA, model age, legality of content -- by a service provider such as DirectNIC, they become obligated to investigate the complaint, or to terminate service in view of the complaint and report it to the proper authorities if there is any chance the complaint is valid, unless the correct substantion by the accused party is given to the service provider.

                This isn't about being the internet police, this is about following a legal path that is rather clear.

                Comment

                • darksoul
                  Confirmed User
                  • Apr 2002
                  • 4997

                  #58
                  Originally posted by Kimmykim
                  Wow, I love to see all the law degrees pop out around here.

                  DirectNIC, any other registrar, any hosting company or any billing company has the right to run their business as they see fit. And to protect themselves from legal jeopardy where needed.

                  Their request really isn't any different than your billing company asking you to provide documentation for a particular model or group of models, and that happens more frequently than you would imagine.

                  Once a complaint has been received -- whether its DMCA, model age, legality of content -- by a service provider such as DirectNIC, they become obligated to investigate the complaint, or to terminate service in view of the complaint and report it to the proper authorities if there is any chance the complaint is valid, unless the correct substantion by the accused party is given to the service provider.

                  This isn't about being the internet police, this is about following a legal path that is rather clear.

                  Again, you fail to let us know what gives them the right to shutdown your domains which you paid for and which they don't own.
                  They can do whatever investigation they feel necessary if thats how they
                  want to conduct their biz, they can report the complaints to the FBI
                  but puting a lock on your domains ?

                  What law enforcement agency do they represent ?
                  1337 5y54|)m1n: 157717888
                  BM-2cUBw4B2fgiYAfjkE7JvWaJMiUXD96n9tN
                  Cambooth

                  Comment

                  • jeffrey
                    Confirmed User
                    • Jul 2004
                    • 1864

                    #59
                    Originally posted by RawAlex
                    jeffrey, first off, would you prefer that Directnic just takes screen shots of the domains and then TURNS THEM OFF? It would be their right to do so. That would kill Slick's business completely, no?

                    Second, can you show where Directnic's ToS violates state or federal laws? None of the information they requested violates any privacy laws that I am aware of.
                    "9. c.
                    You agree that we may take all necessary steps to investigate, document, and report any findings that you have violated this section, including but not limited to disclosing your account information to any and all appropriate law enforcement agencies."

                    They can't investigate into anything without breaking privacy laws.

                    For that matter
                    "You further agree that we may collect these penalties by any means we deem necessary, including but not limited to charging any credit card you have on file with us"

                    If they charged my credit card without my authorization I would go after them for fraud. Ontop of making sure my credit card didnt honor the charge.
                    Their "contract" is NOT authorization.


                    As far as I see it DirectNIC sees all as guilty untill proven otherwise.



                    If this was happening to me I would deffinatly be on the phone with my lawyer and make sure I was fairly compensated for DirectNICs oversight.
                    Coming Soon!

                    Comment

                    • stickyfingerz
                      Doin fine
                      • Oct 2005
                      • 24984

                      #60
                      Originally posted by Kimmykim
                      Wow, I love to see all the law degrees pop out around here.

                      DirectNIC, any other registrar, any hosting company or any billing company has the right to run their business as they see fit. And to protect themselves from legal jeopardy where needed.

                      Their request really isn't any different than your billing company asking you to provide documentation for a particular model or group of models, and that happens more frequently than you would imagine.

                      Once a complaint has been received -- whether its DMCA, model age, legality of content -- by a service provider such as DirectNIC, they become obligated to investigate the complaint, or to terminate service in view of the complaint and report it to the proper authorities if there is any chance the complaint is valid, unless the correct substantion by the accused party is given to the service provider.

                      This isn't about being the internet police, this is about following a legal path that is rather clear.
                      Terminate service is fine, not hold someones property until the comply with something that is not allowed by law.

                      Comment

                      • jeffrey
                        Confirmed User
                        • Jul 2004
                        • 1864

                        #61
                        Originally posted by darksoul
                        I'm not aware of any such laws. They're not liable as long as they do their
                        part of the job and that is forward the complaint to the proper authorities.



                        Theres no evidence of such thing. Also DN is not even an authority in
                        domains, ICANN is and I dont see them involved in this, at least nothing was
                        specified.



                        You can't put a lock on someones properties without a court order , less so
                        when theres no proof of any law beeing broken, you're welcome to prove me otherwise.

                        Well said.
                        Coming Soon!

                        Comment

                        • RawAlex
                          So Fucking Banned
                          • Oct 2003
                          • 9465

                          #62
                          Borked, you quote section 19... did you read 1 to 18 as well? What comes after 19?

                          Darksoul, that link is there to show the type of liablity that the is being intended for everyone because we apparently cannot control ourselves. Directnic is not free for liability becaus McCain's folly hasn't been passed. As KimmyKim says, they have all sorts of liability that is right there, no special internet liablity.

                          The internet does not exist in a legal vaccuum. You cannot negate 200+ years of US lawmaking because this is the internet.

                          Comment

                          • dig420
                            Confirmed User
                            • May 2001
                            • 9240

                            #63
                            Originally posted by Kimmykim
                            Wow, I love to see all the law degrees pop out around here.

                            DirectNIC, any other registrar, any hosting company or any billing company has the right to run their business as they see fit. And to protect themselves from legal jeopardy where needed.

                            Their request really isn't any different than your billing company asking you to provide documentation for a particular model or group of models, and that happens more frequently than you would imagine.

                            Once a complaint has been received -- whether its DMCA, model age, legality of content -- by a service provider such as DirectNIC, they become obligated to investigate the complaint, or to terminate service in view of the complaint and report it to the proper authorities if there is any chance the complaint is valid, unless the correct substantion by the accused party is given to the service provider.

                            This isn't about being the internet police, this is about following a legal path that is rather clear.
                            think I'll just find someone I don't like and send complaints to their registrar about every young looking girl on their site. Should keep them busy for a while putting together a 'please don't take my domains' portfolio of paperwork while I'm busy actually working. If I'm REALLY lucky, maybe they'll think their registrar has no place demanding a model's paperwork from them and they'll lose their domains entirely! One competitor down, 10 million to go!

                            Kimmy, is DNic within their rights to keep his domain or should they just tell him to go elsewhere? Does directnic have subpoena power? Have they shown him the complaint they say they received?

                            To me, this isn't really about the images on his site. It's about how much power you sign over to your registrar. When you move a domain there, are you giving them the right to keep your domain if they don't agree with what's on it? Can your registrar force you to turn over paperwork on pain of losing your domains? My point is that they can ask for paperwork, and if you don't want to deal with it you terminate your business relationship and move on. FORCING you to do this or that at the point of a gun is the job of law enforcement.

                            The last thing in this world I want is to give some judgemental freedom hating conservative nutball the authority to seize my domains because I made the mistake of doing business with his company. Purely hypothetically, of course.

                            Comment

                            • darksoul
                              Confirmed User
                              • Apr 2002
                              • 4997

                              #64
                              Originally posted by RawAlex
                              The internet does not exist in a legal vaccuum. You cannot negate 200+ years of US lawmaking because this is the internet.
                              and still you're not bringing up any law that backs up DN's actions.
                              1337 5y54|)m1n: 157717888
                              BM-2cUBw4B2fgiYAfjkE7JvWaJMiUXD96n9tN
                              Cambooth

                              Comment

                              • Webby
                                Too lazy to set a custom title
                                • Oct 2002
                                • 14956

                                #65


                                And how are our "freedoms" today? What new legislation are these gentlemen in Washington who ooze high moral values scheming next? Child protection eh? Very admirable - they need to be congratulated and their photographs placed on every newspaper front page for a week in honor of their high moral values

                                OK... Dump the crap and down to biz....

                                First off - any webmaster who is not a US citizen or resident in the US, need to immediately remove all their domains from US operated registrars. That's over 50% of the problem solved.

                                Next - for US webmasters, sorry, - your fucked yet again. Tho you did elected idiots, now is the time to live with them. But.. glimmer of hope - move your domains registrar/s out of US territory - no registar is going to ask for ID from websites - it's not their business. It's the business of law enforcement and only of concern in issues involving these offenses.

                                (Note re above: That is not a "get out" for child abuse content - touch that and, no matter where, the law will be on your ass and won't be asking for your "opinion" on the subject.)

                                OK... end of biz bit. Now rant time.

                                worth - Mr McCain is trying for a lot - some good, some crappy. However, there are plenty existing laws under which child related offenses can be prosecuted. The idea that other parties should "look out" for images which may or may not be illegal and placing penalties on these parties if they fail to report whatever possible offense - is totally absurd and in keeping with the police state concept.

                                Flip side is the US appears to have more child abuse issues than any other nation - including child imaging appearing on the net. OK - "we" don't consider that element to be part of the adult business - it's not, but generally the public don't see it that way and the whole industry gets tarnished with the same brush.

                                Equally, there are warped individuals (other than those purveying child content) who are desperate to target the adult industry in an effort, not to protect children, but to serve their own selfish ends in the political arena.

                                It is interesting that Mr McCain raises this issue which appears to be important to him, but still appears to have forgotten about offering children in the US the same rights as children in all other countries. (The US remains the only nation on the planet who has failed so far to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child). In addition, it may also be more of a priority for both Mr McCain and Gonzales to address the issue of cross-border child offenses - a subject that has been deliberately avoided so far by the US DOJ.

                                Only my thoughts - but this shit does need to be wiped from the net - and elsewhere. It is being reported - but it's up to law enforcement to act and, sometimes they are very slow in acting - often because of inadequate resources.

                                Bottom line... the mere idea of pandering to the rulings of the US govt and having domain registrars monitoring domains for possible problem content is repugnant (You saw your neighbor attending Russian classes? You think he's a communist? ) It is the job of a government to do this - not a commercial enterprise. So... fund fucking law enforcement and quit whining because you failed miserably so far on child protection.
                                XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

                                Comment

                                • Brujah
                                  Beer Money Baron
                                  • Jan 2001
                                  • 22157

                                  #66
                                  Wow, that McCain article really needs it's own thread.
                                  http://news.com.com/SenatorIllegalim...?tag=nefd.lede

                                  WTF?!

                                  Comment

                                  • RawAlex
                                    So Fucking Banned
                                    • Oct 2003
                                    • 9465

                                    #67
                                    Originally posted by darksoul
                                    and still you're not bringing up any law that backs up DN's actions.
                                    200 years of US law, liablity laws, etc... I don't have the time or the energy to spend looking through law books to explain something that is simple and evident.

                                    Go to google. Start with "liablity", move on to "contributing to distribution of obscene materials", and run along with "contract law 101". Call me in 3 years when you are done reading.

                                    Then you can go look at 200 years of supreme court cases in business and business liablity.

                                    Then you can take your bar exam.

                                    Then you can go and study the laws and legal system of Lousianna, which is somewhat different from the rest of the US. Good luck.

                                    Turn it around - show me the law that says Directnic has to provide domain services for CP.

                                    Comment

                                    • Webby
                                      Too lazy to set a custom title
                                      • Oct 2002
                                      • 14956

                                      #68
                                      Originally posted by darksoul
                                      and still you're not bringing up any law that backs up DN's actions.
                                      There is no law darksoul - least not yet.

                                      Tho DN is entitled to create any old bullshit they like in their terms of trading - whether this are agreeable to their clients and whether the clients wish to continue any association with DN is a totally different scenario
                                      XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

                                      Comment

                                      • jeffrey
                                        Confirmed User
                                        • Jul 2004
                                        • 1864

                                        #69
                                        Originally posted by RawAlex
                                        The internet does not exist in a legal vaccuum. You cannot negate 200+ years of US lawmaking because this is the internet.

                                        Now you are forgetting that the US does NOT own the internet as much as american want to think they do.

                                        You have to take into account the laws of where the person lives, where the model lives, where its billed, where its hosted, etc.
                                        Coming Soon!

                                        Comment

                                        • RawAlex
                                          So Fucking Banned
                                          • Oct 2003
                                          • 9465

                                          #70
                                          Dig, Directnic isn't Subpeonaing anything... where do you get this from?

                                          Comment

                                          • borked
                                            Totally Borked
                                            • Feb 2005
                                            • 6284

                                            #71
                                            Originally posted by RawAlex
                                            Borked, you quote section 19... did you read 1 to 18 as well? What comes after 19?

                                            Darksoul, that link is there to show the type of liablity that the is being intended for everyone because we apparently cannot control ourselves. Directnic is not free for liability becaus McCain's folly hasn't been passed. As KimmyKim says, they have all sorts of liability that is right there, no special internet liablity.

                                            The internet does not exist in a legal vaccuum. You cannot negate 200+ years of US lawmaking because this is the internet.
                                            You're right - I didn't read 9 as pointed out by Jeffrey, only those pertaining to domain names.

                                            But hell, what a legal quandry #9 poses!

                                            I can rest assured that they cannot touch at all my gambling domains, but hell after reading that Orwellian point 9 - I'm taking all my DN domains elsewhere. In illegal grey areas, they hand over the problem to law enforcement authority. Period.

                                            For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com
                                            (consider figuring out the email as test #1)



                                            All models are wrong, but some are useful. George E.P. Box. p202

                                            Comment

                                            • darksoul
                                              Confirmed User
                                              • Apr 2002
                                              • 4997

                                              #72
                                              Originally posted by RawAlex
                                              200 years of US law, liablity laws, etc... I don't have the time or the energy to spend looking through law books to explain something that is simple and evident.

                                              Go to google. Start with "liablity", move on to "contributing to distribution of obscene materials", and run along with "contract law 101". Call me in 3 years when you are done reading.

                                              Then you can go look at 200 years of supreme court cases in business and business liablity.

                                              Then you can take your bar exam.

                                              Then you can go and study the laws and legal system of Lousianna, which is somewhat different from the rest of the US. Good luck.

                                              Turn it around - show me the law that says Directnic has to provide domain services for CP.
                                              Don't you think a company like DN which from what I understood is run by lawyers could come up with a better justification to their actions than
                                              a law that doesn't exists ?
                                              I rest my case.
                                              1337 5y54|)m1n: 157717888
                                              BM-2cUBw4B2fgiYAfjkE7JvWaJMiUXD96n9tN
                                              Cambooth

                                              Comment

                                              • Webby
                                                Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                • Oct 2002
                                                • 14956

                                                #73
                                                Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                200 years of US law, liablity laws, etc... I don't have the time or the energy to spend looking through law books to explain something that is simple and evident.
                                                Sorry Alex - using "200 years of US law" is irrelevant.

                                                Other nations have far more than 200 years worth of law and it's not a problem.

                                                The US is entitled to make whatever domestic laws it wishes - it is not the legislator for the internet.
                                                XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

                                                Comment

                                                • jeffrey
                                                  Confirmed User
                                                  • Jul 2004
                                                  • 1864

                                                  #74
                                                  Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                  Turn it around - show me the law that says Directnic has to provide domain services for CP.

                                                  Thats not the question, the question is when did directnic turn into the internet police.
                                                  Even doing something illegal you need a court order to freeze assets.
                                                  Not to mention they are not ICCAN, so can not really freeze him from what he owns.
                                                  Coming Soon!

                                                  Comment

                                                  • dig420
                                                    Confirmed User
                                                    • May 2001
                                                    • 9240

                                                    #75
                                                    Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                    Dig, Directnic isn't Subpeonaing anything... where do you get this from?
                                                    From the fact that they're assuming subpoena power on pain of damaging your business when they lock your domains and demand your paperwork.

                                                    Comment

                                                    • RawAlex
                                                      So Fucking Banned
                                                      • Oct 2003
                                                      • 9465

                                                      #76
                                                      Originally posted by jeffrey
                                                      Now you are forgetting that the US does NOT own the internet as much as american want to think they do.

                                                      You have to take into account the laws of where the person lives, where the model lives, where its billed, where its hosted, etc.

                                                      Jeffery, you answered your own question... add "where the domain is registered" on the end of your list. Directnic is a US company, and therefore THEY are subject to US laws, and the domain agreement entered into is subject to US laws. It doesn't matter one fucking bit where you, your sites, or your models are from... you entered into a contract in the US.

                                                      (As a side note, Slick is in the US, and hosted in the US, and registed his domains in the US... so all this international stuff is totally off the point).

                                                      Nobody is asking for full model IDs. They are asking for a photo ID with the model picture and date of birth visible, the rest blacked out. They are not violating anyones rights, as far as I can tell. They are asking the domain holder to show that they are no in violation of the domain registry agreement, based on a complaint (or more than one, we don't know) that they have in their hands.

                                                      Failure to treat the complaints properly could create liabilty for Directnic. How hard is that to understand?

                                                      The only debate is what is proper, and Directnic has enough exerience and enough lawyers on staff to know how to mitigate their liabilities in these sorts of situations.

                                                      Comment

                                                      • teenfunsfan
                                                        Registered User
                                                        • Oct 2005
                                                        • 74

                                                        #77
                                                        Directnic has my full support, this is sick as hell:

                                                        showthread.php?t=686460

                                                        Comment

                                                        • teenfunsfan
                                                          Registered User
                                                          • Oct 2005
                                                          • 74

                                                          #78
                                                          Why an affiliate does business with partners showing shady content is beyond what I can understand.

                                                          Comment

                                                          • RawAlex
                                                            So Fucking Banned
                                                            • Oct 2003
                                                            • 9465

                                                            #79
                                                            Originally posted by jeffrey
                                                            Thats not the question, the question is when did directnic turn into the internet police.
                                                            Even doing something illegal you need a court order to freeze assets.
                                                            Not to mention they are not ICCAN, so can not really freeze him from what he owns.
                                                            Again, you miss the point - Directnic is operating from CONTRACT LAW, not from a standpoint of "legal or illegal porn". What you can do under terms of a contract, reversion clauses, etc... way different from the restrictions placed on questions of pure legality of an act.

                                                            The ToS is the contract for domain registry, agreed by both parties. Directnic is enforcing the agreement.

                                                            Comment

                                                            • RawAlex
                                                              So Fucking Banned
                                                              • Oct 2003
                                                              • 9465

                                                              #80
                                                              Originally posted by dig420
                                                              From the fact that they're assuming subpoena power on pain of damaging your business when they lock your domains and demand your paperwork.
                                                              Nope, again, Contract law, not social law.

                                                              Comment

                                                              • RawAlex
                                                                So Fucking Banned
                                                                • Oct 2003
                                                                • 9465

                                                                #81
                                                                Originally posted by Webby
                                                                Sorry Alex - using "200 years of US law" is irrelevant.

                                                                Other nations have far more than 200 years worth of law and it's not a problem.

                                                                The US is entitled to make whatever domestic laws it wishes - it is not the legislator for the internet.
                                                                Nope, but Directnic is a US company, and the registry agreement is drafted by US law, and both parties agree to apply the laws of the US and Loisianna to the contract.

                                                                it isn't about "internet law"... it's just about contract law.

                                                                Comment

                                                                • dig420
                                                                  Confirmed User
                                                                  • May 2001
                                                                  • 9240

                                                                  #82
                                                                  Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                                  Again, you miss the point - Directnic is operating from CONTRACT LAW, not from a standpoint of "legal or illegal porn". What you can do under terms of a contract, reversion clauses, etc... way different from the restrictions placed on questions of pure legality of an act.

                                                                  The ToS is the contract for domain registry, agreed by both parties. Directnic is enforcing the agreement.
                                                                  Well that's it in a nutshell, isn't it?

                                                                  Sign dnic's contract and risk them taking your domains. Don't sign it and your domains remain your own. Case closed.

                                                                  Comment

                                                                  • darksoul
                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                    • Apr 2002
                                                                    • 4997

                                                                    #83
                                                                    Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                                    Nope, but Directnic is a US company, and the registry agreement is drafted by US law, and both parties agree to apply the laws of the US and Loisianna to the contract.

                                                                    it isn't about "internet law"... it's just about contract law.
                                                                    Please. I'm as much of a lawyer as you are.
                                                                    But "contract law" and TOS will be void in court if they enforce you to
                                                                    break other laws.
                                                                    1337 5y54|)m1n: 157717888
                                                                    BM-2cUBw4B2fgiYAfjkE7JvWaJMiUXD96n9tN
                                                                    Cambooth

                                                                    Comment

                                                                    • Webby
                                                                      Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                      • Oct 2002
                                                                      • 14956

                                                                      #84
                                                                      Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                                      Jeffery, you answered your own question... add "where the domain is registered" on the end of your list. Directnic is a US company, and therefore THEY are subject to US laws, and the domain agreement entered into is subject to US laws. It doesn't matter one fucking bit where you, your sites, or your models are from... you entered into a contract in the US.
                                                                      OK.. You got a point. Who said the location of where a domain is registered becomes a legal venue for eg a corporation in Iceland? ICANN never said this. The domain has a legal venue relating to the address of the Admin. A domain registrar is simply that - a domain registar.

                                                                      Sure.. again, any company, including DN is entitled to quote their terms - nobody is forced to accept them.

                                                                      If the situation is now arising where the US govt is putting pressure on domain registrars (by legal means) to avoid existing claims that they were "managing ICANN - it's time ICANN was replaced and in a location elected by all TLD owners.
                                                                      XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

                                                                      Comment

                                                                      • jeffrey
                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                        • Jul 2004
                                                                        • 1864

                                                                        #85
                                                                        Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                                        Again, you miss the point - Directnic is operating from CONTRACT LAW, not from a standpoint of "legal or illegal porn". What you can do under terms of a contract, reversion clauses, etc... way different from the restrictions placed on questions of pure legality of an act.

                                                                        The ToS is the contract for domain registry, agreed by both parties. Directnic is enforcing the agreement.

                                                                        Contractually they have NO right to freeze his ownership without a court order, Esspecially since they are third party to ICCAN.

                                                                        Also they can not subpeona documents from him, as far as I know DirectNIC is not an acting court.
                                                                        Coming Soon!

                                                                        Comment

                                                                        • RawAlex
                                                                          So Fucking Banned
                                                                          • Oct 2003
                                                                          • 9465

                                                                          #86
                                                                          Originally posted by darksoul
                                                                          Please. I'm as much of a lawyer as you are.
                                                                          But "contract law" and TOS will be void in court if they enforce you to
                                                                          break other laws.
                                                                          No other laws are being broken. Show me a US law being broken. I don't see any.

                                                                          Comment

                                                                          • jeffrey
                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                            • Jul 2004
                                                                            • 1864

                                                                            #87
                                                                            Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                                            No other laws are being broken. Show me a US law being broken. I don't see any.
                                                                            Privacy......
                                                                            Coming Soon!

                                                                            Comment

                                                                            • Webby
                                                                              Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                              • Oct 2002
                                                                              • 14956

                                                                              #88
                                                                              Originally posted by jeffrey
                                                                              Contractually they have NO right to freeze his ownership without a court order, Esspecially since they are third party to ICCAN.
                                                                              Exactly - No person/org has any rights to freeze shit without a court order - and where that court is presented with concrete evidence - else the order is a non-happening.
                                                                              XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

                                                                              Comment

                                                                              • dig420
                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                • May 2001
                                                                                • 9240

                                                                                #89
                                                                                Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                                                Nope, but Directnic is a US company, and the registry agreement is drafted by US law, and both parties agree to apply the laws of the US and Loisianna to the contract.

                                                                                it isn't about "internet law"... it's just about contract law.
                                                                                oh my gosh Alex, I see a pic of Eva Longoria on pornopig. Do you have rights to that pic? Better produce them or lose your domains. After all, copyright infringement is DEFINITELY illegal, as opposed to 'oh it might be illegal slick, give me your paperwork'. Have you read your contract with your registrar lately??

                                                                                You're smarter than this. This is a slippery slope.

                                                                                Comment

                                                                                • RawAlex
                                                                                  So Fucking Banned
                                                                                  • Oct 2003
                                                                                  • 9465

                                                                                  #90
                                                                                  Originally posted by jeffrey
                                                                                  Contractually they have NO right to freeze his ownership without a court order, Esspecially since they are third party to ICCAN.

                                                                                  Also they can not subpeona documents from him, as far as I know DirectNIC is not an acting court.

                                                                                  Jeffery, two problems:

                                                                                  (1) Ownership - there is no such things for domains. Domains are like phone numbers, you don't own them, you rent the rights to them.

                                                                                  (2) The rental is subject to contract law. You are confusing a legal action (subpeona) with a contractual matter (prove that you are respecting the terms of the agreement).

                                                                                  Domains registry is simple. Pay $15, agree to and forllow the terms, and you gain the rights to use a domain name for a year. Failure to follow the terms nullifies the agreement, and things revert to how they were before the contact was engaged (or other clauses invoked covering the failure to comply).

                                                                                  It's not hard. Twisting it around in circles doesn't change the underlying, simple, well founded basis on which the contract is drawn.

                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                  • RawAlex
                                                                                    So Fucking Banned
                                                                                    • Oct 2003
                                                                                    • 9465

                                                                                    #91
                                                                                    Originally posted by dig420
                                                                                    oh my gosh Alex, I see a pic of Eva Longoria on pornopig. Do you have rights to that pic? Better produce them or lose your domains. After all, copyright infringement is DEFINITELY illegal, as opposed to 'oh it might be illegal slick, give me your paperwork'. Have you read your contract with your registrar lately??

                                                                                    You're smarter than this. This is a slippery slope.
                                                                                    Dig, actually, surprising, yes, I do have permission. Now piss off.

                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                    • RawAlex
                                                                                      So Fucking Banned
                                                                                      • Oct 2003
                                                                                      • 9465

                                                                                      #92
                                                                                      Oh and Dig, when you are down to attacking the other people personally rather than debating the subject at hand, it is the overwhelming proof that you lost.

                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                      • teenfunsfan
                                                                                        Registered User
                                                                                        • Oct 2005
                                                                                        • 74

                                                                                        #93
                                                                                        Originally posted by Webby
                                                                                        Exactly - No person/org has any rights to freeze shit without a court order - and where that court is presented with concrete evidence - else the order is a non-happening.
                                                                                        Are you out of your mind? The reason everything is going down the drain is because nobody seems to care about keeping a clean house. I can only congrulate Directnic to step forward and request some action on behalf of a webmaster using their services.

                                                                                        Comment

                                                                                        • dig420
                                                                                          Confirmed User
                                                                                          • May 2001
                                                                                          • 9240

                                                                                          #94
                                                                                          Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                                                          Oh and Dig, when you are down to attacking the other people personally rather than debating the subject at hand, it is the overwhelming proof that you lost.
                                                                                          I'm not attacking you personally. I like you. I'm merely inquiring as to whether you have the legal right to use this image of Mrs. Longoria, as your registrar might need to demand that documentation to protect themselves legally. Hope you have her model release handy and ready to go...

                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                          • Webby
                                                                                            Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                                            • Oct 2002
                                                                                            • 14956

                                                                                            #95
                                                                                            Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                                                            Domains registry is simple. Pay $15, agree to and forllow the terms, and you gain the rights to use a domain name for a year. Failure to follow the terms nullifies the agreement, and things revert to how they were before the contact was engaged (or other clauses invoked covering the failure to comply).
                                                                                            The "agreement" is set out by ICANN - not DN or any other party. Sure, individual registrars are fully entitled to make up any old other crap, but not override the terms of ICANN - under which they operate.

                                                                                            Again, if any country wants to start snoop laws - that's up to them. Nobody has to agree to these laws (other than folks resident in whatever jurisdiction).

                                                                                            It's easy for the rest of the world and no problem - ensure ALL domains, hosting and transaction processors are not within US jurisdiction and the issue is dead.

                                                                                            Flip side is... this is a very slippery slope for US webmasters and one which may be worth addressing.
                                                                                            XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

                                                                                            Comment

                                                                                            • Chris
                                                                                              Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                                              • May 2003
                                                                                              • 27880

                                                                                              #96
                                                                                              alot of fucking text in this thread
                                                                                              [email protected]

                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                              • dig420
                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                • May 2001
                                                                                                • 9240

                                                                                                #97
                                                                                                http://www.findpics.net/newest-porn-links.html

                                                                                                I'm not too damn sure about that chick with the cell phone on the bottom right either. Got your docs ready? Findpics is a nice domain....

                                                                                                See where we're going here? Not so fun now, huh?

                                                                                                Again Alex, I think you're a good guy. I'm just trying to make you understand what it feels like to be under the gun with this type of shit.

                                                                                                Comment

                                                                                                • Webby
                                                                                                  Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                                                  • Oct 2002
                                                                                                  • 14956

                                                                                                  #98
                                                                                                  Originally posted by teenfunsfan
                                                                                                  Are you out of your mind? The reason everything is going down the drain is because nobody seems to care about keeping a clean house. I can only congrulate Directnic to step forward and request some action on behalf of a webmaster using their services.
                                                                                                  DUH? Think before you start typing. Everything is not going down any drain and don't make assumptions about others not caring.

                                                                                                  The US has the worst record of child abuse offenses on net related content - that is the job of the government to provide funds to law enforcement to enact the existing laws.

                                                                                                  It is not the job of a domain registrar to assume the responsibilty of checking websites and take powers to freeze, suspend, whatever, incidents which require further investigation - again, that is the responsiblity of law enforcement and courts - not an arbitary "Court of DirectNic".

                                                                                                  Child abuse content can be removed within 24 hours - nothing is stopping this (unless LE have other reasons to let it continue for a period).
                                                                                                  XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                  • teenfunsfan
                                                                                                    Registered User
                                                                                                    • Oct 2005
                                                                                                    • 74

                                                                                                    #99
                                                                                                    Originally posted by Webby
                                                                                                    DUH? Think before you start typing. Everything is not going down any drain and don't make assumptions about others not caring.

                                                                                                    The US has the worst record of child abuse offenses on net related content - that is the job of the government to provide funds to law enforcement to enact the existing laws.

                                                                                                    It is not the job of a domain registrar to assume the responsibilty of checking websites and take powers to freeze, suspend, whatever, incidents which require further investigation - again, that is the responsiblity of law enforcement and courts - not an arbitary "Court of DirectNic".

                                                                                                    Child abuse content can be removed within 24 hours - nothing is stopping this (unless LE have other reasons to let it continue for a period).
                                                                                                    If you would recieve a complaint and after checking into it would be not sure what you are dealing with. What would you do? Just sit back and relax and hope for the best? Or take some action to keep your house clean?

                                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                                    • DutchTeenCash
                                                                                                      I like Dutch Girls
                                                                                                      • Feb 2003
                                                                                                      • 21684

                                                                                                      #100
                                                                                                      teenfunsfan : do us all ONE favor pls turn of your pc now and leave

                                                                                                      if theres ONE program thats shady as hell - and yes I have the screencaps and plenty of threads on here to proof - its teenfuns and their shit

                                                                                                      ICQ 16 91 547 - SKYPE dutchteencash
                                                                                                      bob AT dutchteencash DOT com
                                                                                                      ... did you see our newest Sweet Natural Girl Priscilla (18)?

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      Working...