"Forget what's legal, do what's right"
(---10 to Midnight)
(---10 to Midnight)
-
***************************************
Give me the offer I can't refuse -
So Webby, for you right is forcing Directnic to provide registration services to a site they feel may be illegal because the courts haven't ruled yet? You understand that the 1998 COPA laws are still being debated in the courts?
This would get refered to the FBI and they might get around to it when President Bush the THIRD comes to power.
In the meantime, Directnic would be obliged to do business with someone regardless of what they can see with their own eyes, on matter that they have at least one complaint in their hands on?
Yes, do what's right... pass the buck and wait.Comment
-
Already said, DirectNic are domain registration agents operating under the rules of ICANN. They have no authority to investigate issues of website content whether this be sexual and any other nature. Laws of the relevant jurisdiction apply and these are handled by law enforcement.
Alex - it takes less than 24 hours for law enforcement to act. They may not act in that time period for other reasons known to themselves. (This has happened in one instance I was involved with - the background issues were more serious than website crap).
DirectNic, like any member of the public, is fully entitled to report what they see as child abuse offenses, or any offenses, direct to law enforcement.XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
..and webby, can you find me where Directnic is obliged to offer services to someone they feel is breaking the law or violating the terms of their registration agreement?Comment
-
DirectNic can do as they please - that's their decision. They can also stand up and answer to liability when they overstep the mark - exactly the same as any business.
The details of any complaint DN may have received are unknown, but I'd question if that turns out to be child content, why they did not report this to the relevant authorities already.XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
Sure, that's the claimed nature. We don't know what the complaint details are - least I don't and can't see any message from DirectNic publishing these details. Perhaps Slicks lawyers have a copy.
And agree, until specifics are investigated, who knows the potential outcome? Would add, the only people that need to be involved in this are law enforcement and Slick's lawyers - nobody else.XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
It makes you wonder what other liability they are now assuming? If they are so willing to police one registrant, shouldn't they be responsible for policing them all now? It would certainly help justify their $15 reg fees when most everyone else is around $10 these days.
Personally I would have preferred that they spent their $ on providing weekend support, or possibly phone support for their non-competitive rate, but whatever.
I'm looking forward to transferring all my domains away as a matter of principle. I don't need Directnic's nose in my business, period, there are enough fuckin people doing that already, I don't need another. Never the less someone who will just turn off your domains.
The registrar is the single point of failure that we all have in this business, and it needs to be someone you can trust. Not some cowboy who thinks that he has the right to do what HE deems is right.
I personally hope that Slick sues him into chapter 7 after all is said and done.Comment
-
Alex, if may come as a surprise, but law enforcement have people specializing in this area and with access to more crap than we could imagine.
You can be assured that if DirectNic made contact, - all of the sites are already logged/recorded - plus all sites linking outwards and law enforcement would be in complete control of the scenario - not asking a domain registrar to see what they can do about shutting them down.
Why do you care what a friggin registrar does? They are all as useful up to the time they screw up (and they all do). There is nothing good that can be said of registrars - they are useless.XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
Seriously - there is a point in that it is worth ensuring all your domains are registered outside US jurisdiction and away from the assumptions of US law and US domain registrars.
For ICANN - here's accredited registrars in various countries..
http://www.icann.org/registrars/accredited-list.htmlXXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
Well, it may come as a surprise to those of you who do not run a large service provider business that deals in adult to know that in general either the FBI or Customs will have a rather consistent working presence with the provider.
And it is not out of the question for a provider to be asked to help with an investigation, while the site(s) in question stay operational during that investigation.
I'm certainly not saying that is what is happening here, but there's always the possibility.
In any case, DirectNIC is a private company with terms of service. Unless ICANN decided to yank their contract -- which I HIGHLY doubt would occur over an incident like this -- then as Michael said already, take your business elsewhere if you do not like the way they handle their business.Comment
-
I'm sure your definition of many is much different than DirectNICs. Strange that you don't hear people with a ton of domains complaining about them -- I even saw Slavik post on JBM that he recommends them. Today.Comment
-
I'd like to personally thank Cathy over at directNIC for accusing me of supporting child pornography by transferring domains away from the registrar.
Comment
-
Move your domains to an offshore registrar.
Host your sites with an offshore webhost.
Neither of these measures will help you one bit if you live in, and work from, the US. You are STILL subject to US law and you are STILL responsible for keeping your sites compliant with US law.Comment
-
nobody here cares about the kiddy porn - everybody's more concerned about an individual's right to continue to make the kiddy porn merrygoround keep turning. bra-fucking- vo!
i don't know if what directnic is doing is over the line legally in this matter, but one thing I do know they're doing is making it ONE click harder to get to child porn.I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!Comment
-
-
DirectNicDARKSOUL: thanks but no thanks, your over priced.
Comment
-
I don't think that's the real reason people are upset. THat's a smokescreen at this point for people to keep justifying the action. What people are really upset about is the possibility that this will set precident for other registrars to start locking down people's domains, with any quasi-justifiable reason as the cause, and bring adult business to their knees in one fell swoop. It's one thing to refuse someone service. It's something else entirely to entirely destroy their business over a possibility. I agree the cause is noble, we should all be doing our part to stop the profliferation of CP on the net. But it should not be done at the cost of people's rights to privacy, people's rights to do legal business. It's just a frightening prospect in a business that already has more than enough huge pitfalls waiting, even for those who try very hard to jump through all the right hoops.Comment
-
Totally agreed. An investigation should be done by law enforcement, not a registrar playing policeman. I hate CP. My oldest daughter is 6 youngest is 2. Believe me it makes me cringe to look at many of slicks sites. Regardless of what "I" think of the material, what DirectNIC is doing is not right in my opinion.Comment
-
i like ya dig but jesus you've been swinging on Mike's dick for a decade now almost. you don't care about this issue one way or the other - the same way Peaches and others like me are just piping in defending Directnic.
i can admit it, so should you.I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!Comment
-
One of my best friends deals with this stuff in the US (LE but also spends her time with lectures for others and also victim support) and it's not a nice picture. (I was totally naive about child abuse offenses till we met years back - since then some stuff has been a shock) It's even more sad when you meet some of the victims - it's so damned pityful
Agree.. it's not a matter of if the image is "legal" or not - it's more a matter of personal judgement as to whether you would publish on the net (or anywhere). It's almost the same as any news media editor - does he show cut up bodies after an incident just because he can and it's "legal"?? We supposed to be in the "adult entertainment industry" - not purveyors of content designed to appeal to pedos.Last edited by Webby; 12-14-2006, 07:08 PM.XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
Last edited by cayne; 12-14-2006, 07:18 PM.If lesbian anal is wrong, I don't want to be right.Comment
-
-
Yea, Ironic, if you don't agree with them then you are clearly supporting the bad guys. That sound familiar to anyone?
Wild Wild West? hmm, Well, 'fraid the company I work for doesn't care to wait for judge Roy Bean to decide it's our turn. The few domains we had affilated with them are awaitng transfer.
Webmasters have had to put up with senseless legal changes, socially conservative anti-porn initiates, hostile politicians, loopsided processing regulations and fees, and a almost rabid obcession for "protecting children" that in many way defines logic and winds up being an excuse for almost any transgression. We have no control over most of it, but registrars we pay for and we don't have to pay for an entity that wants to work in concert with the anti-porn fad, or the all webmasters are scum crowd.
Line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't even work anywhere near the barely legal niche, but my fear is simply what are they going to deem unacceptable next? There's too many risks already without having to worry about the rug being pulled out from under you by a registration service, just isn't worth it.Comment
-
hosting children pics online is bad,time to take out the trashDARKSOUL: thanks but no thanks, your over priced.
Comment
-
are you calling someone a pedo?Comment
-
Someone brought this up on another board - didn't Visa refuse to bill for sites that had girls, while being 18, were made to look younger? I remember a big bruhaha about it, but not the outcome.Comment
-
I'll sum up this thread.
"Times are changing, the internet is no longer going to be the wild west it once was. Those who understand this and adapt will be successful, those who don't will be left behind"
MikeComment
-
What ignorance, I will never ever use Directnic mark my words.Skype Horusmaia
ICQ 41555245
Email [email protected]
Comment
-
It was in an email she sent me in response to my asking if we could find a way around hitting "confirm" on 3,000 transfers.
Then the General Counsel emailed me to helpfully tell me that I was set on transferring away no matter what.
I'm not pleased, to say the least.Comment
-
I wish I could. However:
http://www.gfy.com/showthread.php?p=11531143
If for nothing else, I'd like to recover the drive to get those.Comment
-
this varies state by state and its not clear cut anywhere
Some states have domain names as property, others as contracts
There are 2 sets of laws as well in regards to stolen property or stolen contracts.
In california rulings domains have been ruled as property, thanks to sex.com case
In Virginia they are contracts.Comment
Comment