Well, I've started my work for the day, so I'll keep you posted on what's going on as the day progresses.

what does this proof?? Just nothing!

points a) and b) are IF he has violated these terms, but he has NOT, at least their is NO evidience he has and mostly their won't be because most if not all galleries are from well known sponsor and affilate programs.

point c.) again requires that he has violated a) or b) which he has NOT, at least you can NOT show any evidience he has, so it's just obvious that c) doesn't count at such situation like the one in this thread.

Furthermore, even if you WANT to see "up-to-date-model-id's i realy doubt it's legal as a 3rd person slick first of all has NO personal connection to the models to ask them to handover their ID's and 2nd even if he had i guess it would be a crime to handover personal Id's of 3rd persons to whomever (excluding authorities with the legal right). I might be wrong, but following common sense there is no way you legally can force him to collect/handover the requeested documents, even if he agreed on your terms on it.

There are laws about procedures and information on who, how, when, why can gather it and it doesn't matter wahtever you write in your terms. These terms maybe frighten or scare some webmasters or people without knowledge about laws, but that's it.

If this was my case i first would check how many current laws directNIC with such behaviour is violating and i bet there are some.

Another thing is due what kind of complaint the whole thing happened? Just because someone somehow filled in a complaint about some of his sites? If so than why wasn't it forwarded to the authorities that deal with such cases? No idea how things are hanled at directNIC, but if everyone can send a complaint about a websites and you are goind to take such actions than this is a good method to remove "competitors" easy away (j/k).
If the complaint was sent by the authories than i doubt the story because i guess they would first investigated further before they would notify you and additionally for such actions it requires some paperwork too.

I personally never had a domain with directNIC and i won't ever have one. I wonder if the high prices over there are due their "investigation" and "review" jobs they handle beside registering domains.

Slick, good luck on it and tell your lawyer to check how many laws directNIC is violating with their behaviour, could help a bit!

Would suggest Moniker or Namecheap as others have mentioned. Hope it gets resolved quickly.

doesn't look it is, at least i wouldn't rate my registar "adultfriendly" in such cases, but maybe we have different understandings abou the meaning of "adultfriendly" :1orglaugh

DirectNic is mostly owned by lawyers and those that have previously been in the adult biz. To even suggest that they aren't adult biz friendly is just absurd.

Michael has already said he's investigating this. Better to be dealing with an owner of the company than the US government, IMO.

And as someone else pointed out in regards to WEG, they aren't the only registrar that's locked domains if there was a legal complaint. They (DirectNic) gave Slick a week to explain the situation before shutting him/her down - looks like godaddy never offered a chance for WEG to respond.

I'am not sure if i agree to this.
Most people seem to fear authorities generally, but why fear them if everything is legal? i had in my adult career many dealings with the law and authorities due the adult business and for me it turned out that it's just fair. Authorities may question some things, check and investigate it and if everything is fine you are done, where's the problem?
I personally would prefer to deal with someone who knows the law, their rights, your rights, what they can do and what not, than just someone playing on his own internet-cyber-police.

As I stated, DirectNic is owned in part by lawyers. Plus I'm pretty sure they had their contract looked at by other lawyers. What makes you think they don't know the laws or your rights? Probably more than a lowend government official who's going to be investigating if it reaches that point.

being a lawyer for divorces for example doesn't make you an expert in cyber law automaticly, just generally that being a lawyer doesn't neccessary mean they understand or are experts in ALL laws. And even lawyers make mistakes.

Reading the entire post #1

whatever you tell me on this. This is NEVER EVER law confirm. So the directnic buddy is requesting Information about 250 - 1000 Model ID's, maybe even more. Now i'am too curious where the right for a registar is written that he can GATHER PERSONAL INFORMATION about 3RD persons!!!????!!!

than this sentence:

having in mind that already the 1st part i quoted isn't legal, maybe even a crime than we follow here with some kind of "blackmail", in the meaning of either you give us what we want AND/OR we close your site/business.
Again, their is NO evidience that he has anything illegal on his site, you requrest ILLEGAL information and he gets blackmailed if he is NOT following their request.

Do i miss something? Can you show me somewhere in the law where a registar has the right to collect model releases and id's and personal data from 3rd persons? If not, than this is just and simply illegal.

How i said, if i was in Slick's situation that's the first thing i would tell my lawyer. Sorry if i'am wrong, but i doubt i'am.

I agree. Starting communication with them like this will also show your willingness to supply the information they seek, but that you aren't in the position to provide it.

I would tell them to un-'legal lock' the domains / account and tell them they can contact the content owners; give them a list of URLs to all of the 2257 information pages for each of the sponsors too, even if there are hundreads. :)

Matt

First off, I am not a directnic employee, my only connection is that I have domains there and I happen to have a 5 year or so board relationship with MikeAI.

I am also not a lawyer and I can tell by what you write that you are not a lawyer either.

that said, para c indicates that I (as a person with a domain registered at directnic) will allow directnic to take all necessary steps to investigate whether I have violated these rules. One necessary step would be determining if indeed it is underage/illegal content. Therefore requesting that I provide age docs might be a valid request within the scope of their investigation.

The question of whether slik can give those documents is where privacy comes into play. Directnic can request anything they want from someone, as can you or I. If someone provides the information to them (or you or I) the person providing the info may be in violation of the law but the one making a request has not, imho, violated any laws at that point.




.

see my reply just above this one :thumbsup

Agreed, and this is not only frightening, but I think unenforcable? I was under the impression only US Government agents had the right to respect documentation, wtf is a third-party company doing requesting docs? They should be reporting it if they feel there's an issue with content.

so can you explain how gets directnic a service provider to put a "legal lock" on something they don't own ? Dont you need a court order for this ?

sorry for the missunderstanding in first place, i thought you might be affilated or an employee there.

But you are for sure TOTALLY wrong in your statement that only the person giving out information is violating laws. In this case he gets FORCED to do so, which is clearly stated in the email (either give us .. or we shut down ...)
Even without being a lawyer (but being someone dealt x times with laws) i can tell you that this could be a crime, at very least it's illegal. Just ot make it more clear, someone asking to do someone an illegal action is generally sentenced like the one doing the illegal action. In this case it's even harder, because he gets FORCED to do so and maybe only his post in this forum and thread avoided him to do so!

bump to be kept updated.

that sucks slick, you have awesome traffic.

I think most registrars reserve the right to screw with you.

From Godaddys TOS:

Go Daddy reserves the right to terminate Services if Your usage of the Services results in, or is the subject of, legal action or threatened legal action, against Go Daddy or any of its affiliates or partners, without consideration for whether such legal action or threatened legal action is eventually determined to be with or without merit. Go Daddy may review every account for excessive space and bandwidth utilization and to terminate or apply additional fees to those accounts that exceed allowed levels.


Except as set forth below, Go Daddy may also cancel Your use of the Services, after thirty (30) days, if You are using the Services, as determined by Go Daddy in its sole discretion, in association with spam or morally objectionable activities. Morally objectionable activities will include, but not be limited to: activities designed to defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties; activities prohibited by the laws of the United States and/or foreign territories in which You conduct business; activities designed to encourage unlawful behavior by others, such as hate crimes, terrorism and child pornography; activities that are tortuous, vulgar, obscene, invasive of the privacy of a third party, racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable; activities designed to impersonate the identity of a third party; illegal access to other computers or networks (i.e., hacking); distribution of Internet viruses or similar destructive activities; and activities designed to harm or use unethically minors in any way. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, in the event Go Daddy cancels Your Services during the first thirty (30) days after You purchase the Services, You will receive a refund of any fees paid to Go Daddy in connection with the Services being canceled. In the event Go Daddy deletes Your Services because they are being used in association with spam or morally objectionable activities, no refund will be issued. You agree You will not be entitled to a refund of any fees paid to Go Daddy if, for any reason, Go Daddy takes corrective action with respect to Your improper or illegal use of its Services.

from moniker:

29. AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND
By applying for a Moniker service(s) through our online application process or by applying for and registering a domain name as part of our web or e-mail template application process or by using the service(s) provided by Moniker under this Agreement, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions of this Agreement and any pertinent rules or policies that are or may be published by Moniker. at any time. These terms will continue to apply to all past use of the Service(s) by You, even if You are no longer using the Service(s). You acknowledge and agree that Registrar may terminate or block Your use of all or part of the Service without prior notice for any reason, including, without limitation, if Registrar believes You have engaged in conduct prohibited by these terms. You agree that upon termination or discontinuance for any reason, Moniker may delete all information related to You on the Service and may bar Your access to and use of the Service.

You realize that the TOS means shit if it breaks other laws, right ?

I am fully aware of that.

Now, what laws does any of the TOS(es) I have quoted violate?

Exactly what I was going to say.


Here in Canada I would go to jail for longer giving that information out then if it was actually CP.

I would probably inform the feds that they are illegally trying to gain private information.

jeffery, don't let anhone fool you. Go back and read the original issue. They want a picture and a date of birth, the rest of the ID blacked out. They don't want any model personal information. How else would you prove the age of a model if you host asked?

money extortion from illegal activities. Of course you didn't quote it since you appear to be a selective reader. I'll quote it for you:

"CONTENT OBTAINED WITHOUT RELIABLE CONSENT.
You agree that if we determine that your use of our Services or System is in any way connected or affiliated with the display, promotion, or dissemination of content obtained without reliable consent from each participant-e.g., sexual or nude images involving children under the age of 18, bestiality, murder, rape-we may charge your account a penalty in the amount of US $1,000.00 for every domain name in violation of this section. 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 or auctioning your domains."

have you contacted directnic or this intercosmos people yet to find out if it truly was something they sent you? Or possibly just someone spoofing some shit to you?

They requested, "We require a current state issued photo id or passport for the models represented on the followings site that clearly shows their face and their date of birth." The model could be 25 now. A current ID proves nothing. They handled this so wrong. Sure they have to protect themselves but maybe they should have gone to the content producer for the info. If they want to be the police they have to investigate not make demands that could well be illegal in themselves.

the violation is how DirectNIC is handling what they call investigating.

If requesting 100's of Model ID's is their way how they handle "investigation" and by NOT following their instructions websites get shut down, than yes, than yes, the TOS and how it's handled IS violating law.

Without being a lawyer i can't say more about the whole TOS, however, the whole investigating process as well as the "how-what-to-define" process look questionable.

In my opinion the TOS points are made in generally in case authorities are asking for action and to be on the sure side toward the client, but not for taking law and "legal" actions in their hand or giving them the right to do so.

I'm assuming it is legit since Mike didn't say the name on the email posted was bogus and because I did try moving one of my undeveloped domains away from DirectNic and it never went through, so they definately got me locked.

i'm with namecheap and splitinfinity (see signature) and i have never had a simple problem with either of them...

The ToS is there. Slick agreed to it when he formed the account and registered the domains. It doesn't say "we can only ask for 1 ID"... Slick's sites have hundreds of images on every page.

If Slick wants to keep the domains and stay within his contract with Directnic, he need to follow the terms of the ToS or find a lawyer that can get that ToS negated in some fashion. Otherwise he is pretty much in a bad place.

Now, if you really want to get a better understanding of the subject, I recommend you spend 5 minutes surfing each of the "teen" TGPs that Slick runs. You might have a different opinion after that (please don't use webmaster eyes to look at things, look at it like some newbie without knowloedge of the models and the business).

So you are saying presumed guilty until proven innocent is the way to go? :error

I love the mentality of the adult webmaster community....

Instead of resolving an issue, advice flows in on how to "get around it" and more "woe is me" comments than I care to hear. This is one of the greatest gigs in the world. It's easy to make a living doing it, but there are a few simple RULES that have to be followed to stay off anyone's radar and keep your ass out of hot water.

1 Don't send out unsolicited spam
2. Don't use illegal content
3. Be 2257 compliant

Following those 3 simple rules will most likely keep your business under the radar and your ass out of anyone's hot seat. But, I can't help but chuckle when I hear someone breaking one of those RULES and they get on someone's radar/in somone's hotseat and some of you folks yell about the steps they're taking because they're not following the RULES in the actionable steps they're taking..... in this case, locking the account.

Now, all that said Slick, it looks like you're trying to run a decent business and since no one has approached this thread in a manner where you might actually get this issue resolved (and avoided next time) let me give you some words of wisdom that might actually help you out.

Stop Bitching About Them Locking Your Account.
You agreed to their TOS when you signed up using their service so complaining about them evoking an action you agreed to allow them to evoke is a waste of time and money. Focus on "WHY they did" and resolve that - and yes, you did things (addressed below) that caused the problem yourself.

Stop Auto Cropping Your Thumbs
If you're going to use thumbs like this one to promote websites http://207.226.163.35/filthybrats/th214105.jpg you damn well better be sure that it is 2257 compliant and according to her website http://galleries.sweetpaige.com/14rs...p?CCBC=1216876 she is.

I would not be surprised if this was the image that put you in the hot seat. That gallery is made to represent a very young girl. You know it, I know it and anyone with half a brain can see that. I would suggest to you to make your thumbs manually to avoid altering the scene of the original image.

Become 2257 Compliant
You are not and since you're skirting with very young teen depictions, bells and whistles on someone's radar are going off left and right.

Take a look at the 2257 information you posted on your website.

All other visual depictions displayed on this Website are exempt from the provision of 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 because said they do not portray conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct, or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to July 3, 1995.

Two things immediately come to mind in reading this:
A). No sponsor I know of is distributing pre 1995 shot content for webmaster use these days
B). If you think putting an underaged teen's image between 2 other thumbs with obviously legal images of a cock in a mouth or cum dripping off her chin and hide behind the "well, that one particular image isn't depicting a sex act" is going to fly.... you are skating on very thin ice so don't be surprised when you fall through.

You go on to say in your 2257 information: THIS LIST IS NOT COMPLETE YET, BUT WILL BE UPDATED SHORTLY.

Ok, you just admitted that your website isn't 2257 compliant so get it there.

Not everything can be automated through the use of scripts so take a day and make it so.... then spend the following day making sure it is again and periodically check to see if the sites you're trading with look legit and if you see images on their site that make you ponder - ask them about it. It shows you care about the quality of your trades and you're watching each others backs.

Taking these steps will do you a world of good and if you keep running your business with this mentality, I doubt you'd ever have to encounter this problem again and if by some chance you did, THEN sue their asses!

My parting advice is to send them an email asking for a copy of the original complaint and also tell them you're going to take the above steps to resolve any problems in 2 days and ask that they unlock your account to do so. Be nice in your request and I think you'll see favorable results.

Good Luck!

No, I am saying "I can see where the complaints would come from"...

Thanks Bama, the long version but you are correct, IMHO.

I quoted that in at least one of these threads.

That is called a penalty and if you check I believe that you will find that icann allows them to assess a penalty if they so choose.

Yup sounds about right, remember we are still under the Bush administration everyone's guilty until proven innocent!

:Oh crap

This trend will not change until we get these damn conservatives OUT of control of everything!

That's fucked up dude. I hope you are able to move them, you seem to have quite a nice network there...

So now what? let's say each site has 500 galleries with archives and he has 20 sites so you want to tell me that it's normally that 10.000 model id's (Whether with blackout info or not) are requested?? But even IF he unknowingly agreed to it, it still doesn't give anyone the right to force him to do something that might or mostly IS a crime itself. Additionally i doubt that anybody running a network of tgp's could provide (even if possible) such information within 1 weel. Even another additionally is that many sponsor REFUSE to give out Model IDs to 3rd persons, but only hand them over when contacted/requested by authorities!!!
It writes in their TOS that THEY can investigate cases WHEN there are violations of the TOS. I did NOT read that it writes ANYWHERE they CAN REQUEST whatever they want information. If they want to investigate it, they can contact the FBI, the affilate programs or whomever they want, but i did NOT read it writes the CAN REQUEST DOCUMENTS from the client generally or regarding the age of models. If i'am wrong show me please where you readed it.
Following your logic they could also request a car documents from a car selling site if there is a complaint that someone things there are stollen cars too, lol. Dude, don't you see it's not a registars work? I have said it before, i really would prefer to deal directly with a cyber squad from the FBI which immediatly would see how useless this is than dealing with a Registar who things he can do his own whatever he wants.

Since when it is reverse that someone is guilty without evidience? Did you see CP or underage on his page? Do you have any proof that his FHGs he is using from sponsors are illegal? If you answered the last 2 questions with NO than where is the problem?


Who cares about opinions? Of course everybody has opintions but that's not what people get sentenced for. There are facts and CP is when a girl is in fact below the age of 18 and not when i personally have a feeling she doesn't look like 18. And of course are Teen sites full with Thumbs of 18 year olds, many maybe only some days or weeks 18, but they are, if you like the thumbs or not it doesn't make the models younger, lol.

Interesting how they don't even mention the words 2257. Definitely sounds like a complaint they received and subsequently acted upon. Whether or not they are overstepping their boundaries as registrar, I'm sure the FBI wants 2257 violations reported and not independently investigated. It compromises their whole legal process. As has already been mentioned, current IDs wouldn't prove they were of legal age at the time of the shoot anyway. That e-mail is a testament to their lack of professionalism.

Pointing to sponsors and asking investigators to look themselves isn't gonna fly. If you are the owner of a web site, you are responsible for its content. I don't see how that can be really argued against. The fact/problem is, to realistically follow 2257 as a third party provider, you would have to spend an impossible amount of time keeping track of it to the point where you couldn't effectively run your business. That may be the long-term point, of course. In the meantime, we all have to be on our toes with our fingers crossed, for Slick and our own sakes. Basically, to me, 2257 is a bomb just starting to drop, and being third party won't necessarily help you escape the blast.

Once again.... Please read carefully.


This means that the investigation is conducted to see if the TOS has been violated, not conducted AFTER the TOS has been violated (as you suggest).

Post count bother you? Sorry bout that, I have a different home board, but this issue seems important enough to come out an take a peek at.

It sounds like you are doing more than locking a domain. Not being a first party to any of it I am merely making a generalized concerned comment.

I didn't suggest a mass exodus, I am pointing out that this issue is spilling out onto boards across the spectrum and many of those (sub) debates are indicating something like that is potentially a fear inspired defense to this situation.

I don't know enough about this to be saying what should and should not be done. I do know enough to make note that whatever does comes down, is going to require a healthy amount of diplomacy to prevent just such a fear inspred exodus. Not sure that your last comment qualifies at that.. LOL