I Will Organize A Boycott Of DirectNic If They Don't... - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

LiveDose · 12-13-2006, 08:54 AM

This should be interesting...

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I have a feeling that there may be legal liabilities for Directnic if someone says "I know that this image is CP", and they fail to take action.

I have never at any point said that any registrar, or anyone else for that matter, should "do nothing" if they spot what they reasonably believe to be CP.

The appropriate course of action is to refer the matter to the authorities.

Do we really now want to be in a position where not only can the FBI show up at our doors at any time demanding to conduct 2257 investigations, but our hosts and registrars as well?

Peaches · 12-13-2006, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I have never at any point said that any registrar, or anyone else for that matter, should "do nothing" if they spot what they reasonably believe to be CP.

The appropriate course of action is to refer the matter to the authorities.

Do we really now want to be in a position where not only can the FBI show up at our doors at any time demanding to conduct 2257 investigations, but our hosts and registrars as well?

Seems like instead of turning them directly over to the authorities, they are giving them a chance to clear things up with DirectNic first, whereas Godaddy turned WEG off immediately.

Though to be honest, Intercosmos was listed as one of the top up and coming companies in a national mag (can't remember which one). I'm pretty sure they'd do OK if your "teh boycott" went through

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Do we really now want to be in a position where not only can the FBI show up at our doors at any time demanding to conduct 2257 investigations, but our hosts and registrars as well?

No but do we want to get in a situation where hosts forward every single comlaint they recieve straight to the fbi?
If the client is legit and can show the documents needed they would save themselves and the client a whole lot of trouble by just doing a small investigation themselves first.

What should hosts do? Just let the illegal content online untill some fbi officer has time to investigate it? Just shut down the suspected site untill it was investif-gated by the authoroties? I believe doing a small investigation first is the easiest and most honest thing to do. Who says they will not accept a picture with the model holding the id and/or a model release where all personal information but the date of birth is blanked?

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

Seems like instead of turning them directly over to the authorities, they are giving them a chance to clear things up with DirectNic first.

Though to be honest, Intercosmos was listed as one of the top up and coming companies in a national mag (can't remember which one). I'm pretty sure they'd do OK if your "teh boycott" went through

They're giving them the chance to turn over scores of private identification documents of models and conduct a private 2257 investigation is what they're doing.

Does NO ONE in this industry give a rats ass about the privacy of models? Or privacy laws? Once you become a model that's it, it's totally acceptable for your driver's license, passport, social security number, or whatever damn else catches someone's fancy to be passed out like candy, even without legal reason or foundation to do so?

I think not.

As for how big they are and what effect a boycott can have. Let me remind you that through-out history enormous impacts have been made against much larger companies than them.

I, for one, don't take a defeatist roll over "oh there's nothing that can be done" attitude about things.

Peaches · 12-13-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

No but do we want to get in a situation where hosts forward every single comlaint they recieve straight to the fbi?
If the client is legit and can show the documents needed they would save themselves and the client a whole lot of trouble by just doing a small investigation themselves first.

What should hosts do? Just let the illegal content online untill some fbi officer has time to investigate it? Just shut down the suspected site untill it was investif-gated by the authoroties? I believe doing a small investigation first is the easiest and most honest thing to do. Who says they will not accept a picture with the model holding the id and/or a model release where all personal information but the date if birth is blanked?

Or they may even just accept an explanation of the situation.

People are putting the cart SO far before the horse on this, lol.

Peaches · 12-13-2006, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

As for how big they are and what effect a boycott can have. Let me remind you that through-out history enormous impacts have been made against much larger companies than them.

I, for one, don't take a defeatist roll over "oh there's nothing that can be done" attitude about things.

Yeah, I remember when all the adult webmasters were going to boycott AMEX and Paypal for not accepting adult billing.

No one's rolling over. Michael, one of the actual owners, has said he's looking into this.

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

Yeah, I remember when all the adult webmasters were going to boycott AMEX and Paypal for not accepting adult billing.

Well I can't speak to that, as I wasn't around for that boycott, and I wasn't the one that led it.

It's very clear that you have some sort of personal and/or business relationship with Mike and he can do no harm in your eyes. That's fine.

I, on the other hand, do not, and am taking an objective third party view of the situation, and basing my comments on that.

Peaches · 12-13-2006, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I, on the other hand, do not, and am taking an objective third party view of the situation, and basing my comments on that.

Actually, what you're doing is reacting to a situation that hasn't even come close to being investigated, let alone a conclusion being met.

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Well I can't speak to that, as I wasn't around for that boycott, and I wasn't the one that led it.

It's very clear that you have some sort of personal and/or business relationship with Mike and he can do no harm in your eyes. That's fine.

I, on the other hand, do not, and am taking an objective third party view of the situation, and basing my comments on that.

Oh comon... I expected more from you... Everyone who doesn't agree with you is a relative or friend or whatever from whoever you are fighting? Get real, some people just look at things differenty than you do.

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

No but do we want to get in a situation where hosts forward every single comlaint they recieve straight to the fbi?

Yes, actually, we do want them to forward every complaint that they reasonable believe is legitimate to the FBI.

The Innocent Images group can VERY quickly and with a great deal of accuracy, determine if a site contains CP. Between their automated systems that can scan content and compare it to known CP, and their expertise in looking at specific physical attributes of the model, if the imagery isn't actually CP, they'll know it in a hurry, and won't bother with an investigation.

I'd MUCH rather have that take place, than all sorts of private companies starting to act like 2257 records inspectors.

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Oh comon... I expected more from you... Everyone who doesn't agree with you is a relative or friend or whatever from whoever you are fighting? Get real, some people just look at things differenty than you do.

Yes, I agree with that, and have been discussing disagreements. However with remarks that she's been making, I thought it obvious there's more to it than an objective policy disagreement.

If I'm wrong about that then I apologize to Peaches.

seeric · 12-13-2006, 09:21 AM

i'd never provide docs to anyone BUT the authorities required under the statute.

Slick · 12-13-2006, 09:23 AM

Thanks for the support BoyAlley, I greatly appreciate it

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slick

Thanks for the support BoyAlley, I greatly appreciate it

I do want to make something clear here, and I mean this as NO insult toward you whatsoever, so please please please don't take it that way:

I'm not doing this to support you. Honestly, I can't speak for the content that's on your sites (especially since I'm not familiar with hetero content), or what you link to, or how you get your traffic, or anything else.

What I CAN speak to, and what I DO feel strongly about, is the POLICY that you've uncovered of DirectNic wanting to become 2257 records inspectors.

That is wrong, in my opinion, in any situation, no matter what the content might look like.

Again, there are people in this country whose job it is to investigate such things, and those people are not called registrars.

darksoul · 12-13-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

No but do we want to get in a situation where hosts forward every single comlaint they recieve straight to the fbi?
If the client is legit and can show the documents needed they would save themselves and the client a whole lot of trouble by just doing a small investigation themselves first.

What should hosts do? Just let the illegal content online untill some fbi officer has time to investigate it? Just shut down the suspected site untill it was investif-gated by the authoroties? I believe doing a small investigation first is the easiest and most honest thing to do. Who says they will not accept a picture with the model holding the id and/or a model release where all personal information but the date of birth is blanked?

a little investigation does not equal a "legal lock" whatever the fuck that means.
the most directnic can do about something like this, legal that is, is
tell the customer to switch registrars because he's breaking their TOS or whatever.
They have no right to lock something they don't own, much less shutting it down.

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 09:30 AM

now lets go back to the original email:

Quote:

The legal department has been requested to review your domain site for possible illegal content. 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.

So no personal information but the date of birth is asked. Is that so bad? Who will die from that? Who's privacy will be invaded? Just ask for the document from whoever provided you with the gallery and forward it as requested. (this is assuming that its for one or 2 pictures they are reffering to and not every model on a tgp)

Slick · 12-13-2006, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I do want to make something clear here, and I mean this as NO insult toward you whatsoever, so please please please don't take it that way:

I'm not doing this to support you. Honestly, I can't speak for the content that's on your sites (especially since I'm not familiar with hetero content), or what you link to, or how you get your traffic, or anything else.

What I CAN speak to, and what I DO feel strongly about, is the POLICY that you've uncovered of DirectNic wanting to become 2257 records inspectors.

That is wrong, in my opinion, in any situation, no matter what the content might look like.

Again, there are people in this country whose job it is to investigate such things, and those people are not called registrars.

Yeah, I agree with you 100% on that. It definately is wrong how they're going about the situation. I do see what you mean.

Quick Buck · 12-13-2006, 09:35 AM

I think the point of this has gotten confused.

What DirectNic did that was wrong is that they locked the account and then demanded documentation in order to unlock the account.

If they had simply contacted him and said "We believe the content of your site is potentially illegal" and "we intend to turn the evidence over to the feds and will not allow you to renew the domain with us if you do not provide us with assurance that the content is legal" then nobody would be in an uproar about it.

This guy OWNS this domain name, it is his property, directnic is acting as though it is their property and he is just being permitted to use it.

He has every right to transfer the domain name to another registrar and has no obligation to provide any documentation to directnic. It *is* there right to say "we dont want to be your registrar anymore, please transfer your domains within 30 days as we are closing your account".

At that point they also have an obligation to refund him some of the money that he paid them to register the domain on his behalf.

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

now lets go back to the original email:

So no personal information but the date of birth is asked. Is that so bad? Who will die from that? Who's privacy will be invaded? Just ask for the document from whoever provided you with the gallery and forward it as requested. (this is assuming that its for one or 2 pictures they are reffering to and not every model on a tgp)

Ok, so now not only are people required to keep 2257 documents with unredacted IDs for FBI inspections, but they have to edit potentially hundreds or thousands of documents to black out all of the personal information in case of a "Registrar 2257 Inspection"?

Ridiculous. This entire situation is absurd.

pocketkangaroo · 12-13-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

now lets go back to the original email:

So no personal information but the date of birth is asked. Is that so bad? Who will die from that? Who's privacy will be invaded? Just ask for the document from whoever provided you with the gallery and forward it as requested. (this is assuming that its for one or 2 pictures they are reffering to and not every model on a tgp)

It's not their right to ask, plain and simple. If they suspect something illegal, they should report it to the authorities. They are not the authorities, they are not the justice system, they sell fucking domain names and should stick to that.

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quick Buck

I think the point of this has gotten confused.

What DirectNic did that was wrong is that they locked the account and then demanded documentation in order to unlock the account.

If they had simply contacted him and said "We believe the content of your site is potentially illegal" and "we intend to turn the evidence over to the feds and will not allow you to renew the domain with us if you do not provide us with assurance that the content is legal" then nobody would be in an uproar about it.

This guy OWNS this domain name, it is his property, directnic is acting as though it is their property and he is just being permitted to use it.

He has every right to transfer the domain name to another registrar and has no obligation to provide any documentation to directnic. It *is* there right to say "we dont want to be your registrar anymore, please transfer your domains within 30 days as we are closing your account".

At that point they also have an obligation to refund him some of the money that he paid them to register the domain on his behalf.

I can agree with your point that locking the account was one step to far.

darksoul · 12-13-2006, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

now lets go back to the original email:

So no personal information but the date of birth is asked. Is that so bad? Who will die from that? Who's privacy will be invaded? Just ask for the document from whoever provided you with the gallery and forward it as requested. (this is assuming that its for one or 2 pictures they are reffering to and not every model on a tgp)

uhm. Lets assume we would be talking about a site using cp content.
Can you explain how the date of birth proves that the pictures weren't
taken before the model was 18 ?

pocketkangaroo · 12-13-2006, 09:40 AM

The funny part about this is that if you swapped DirectNic with GoDaddy, this board would be ready to burn down the GoDaddy headquarters. But because the owner of this company has probably bought a few drinks in his life for people here, they get a free pass.

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Ok, so now not only are people required to keep 2257 documents with unredacted IDs for FBI inspections, but they have to edit potentially hundreds or thousands of documents to black out all of the personal information in case of a "Registrar 2257 Inspection"?

Ridiculous. This entire situation is absurd.

dramaqueen! Your blowing the whole thing so far out of proportion it is starting to look as if you are making a joke out of it. If you have the unredacted id it takes about 11 seconds to blank out unneeded information. BOOHOOHOO!

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksoul

uhm. Lets assume we would be talking about a site using cp content.
Can you explain how the date of birth proves that the pictures weren't
taken before the model was 18 ?

What has that to do with it? If you don't provide the docs they will forward it to the fbi (like everyone seems to find is what they needed to do in the first place). How are you going to proof to the FBI that the pictures weren't taken when the model was -18 at the time the pictures were taken?

GonZo · 12-13-2006, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

The funny part about this is that if you swapped DirectNic with GoDaddy, this board would be ready to burn down the GoDaddy headquarters. But because the owner of this company has probably bought a few drinks in his life for people here, they get a free pass.

This thread gets more entertaining by the hour.

Im off to search for threads of MikeAI being called a "top notch" guy.

darksoul · 12-13-2006, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

What has that to do with it? If you don't provide the docs they will forward it to the fbi (like everyone seems to find is what they needed to do in the first place). How are you going to proof to the FBI that the pictures weren't taken when the model was -18 at the time the pictures were taken?

Uhm, if he doesn't provides the docs his domains are shitcanned
I saw nothing about FBI in this story.

Besides the fact that they have no right to ask for the docs, they're asking
something that proves shit.

LA Mike · 12-13-2006, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spunky

This thread makes my nuts itch

That's actually the Canucks coach hiding in your pants :P

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksoul

Uhm, if he doesn't provides the docs his domains are shitcanned
I saw nothing about FBI in this story.

Besides the fact that they have no right to ask for the docs, they're asking
something that proves shit.

I jusrt agreed that locking the domains was a step to far but I really don't see anything wrong with asking for some documentation.

jimthefiend · 12-13-2006, 09:56 AM

Hear hear.

Ghey

darksoul · 12-13-2006, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

I really don't see anything wrong with asking for some documentation.

Well, I think, whats wrong is the fact that they have no right
to ask for such documentation ?

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE · 12-13-2006, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I'll be happy to answer these for you, even though it's lame drama and has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand:

1. I don't think it's my job to tell DirectNic how to run their business. They can implement whatever policies they like (assuming that they're legal). However I have every right to state my personal opinion of the actions of any company, and what I believe those actions might mean in a larger scale.

2. Everyone saw through your publicity ploy. I doubt many people on here take the things you do seriously, and I never tried to "ruin you". You got a ton of free publicity, and you did your best to play it all up and keep it going for as long as possible, everyone saw that. If you have any business sense at all you can translate some of that into sales.

3. In just 3 auctions I raised over $24,000 for charities. My last auction fetched just as much as my first one did, so your theories are moot. I'm happy with what I was able to accomplish for some worthy causes in 2006, and look forward to doing even more in 2007, considering I didn't start doing auctions this year until August I believe it was.

That will be the last of your ridiculousness that I respond to in this thread. This is a serious thread about a serious subject. If you'd like to be put through the paces again, feel free to start a new thread about your drama.

No drama at all, I had real questions and you gave real answers, thank you....

sarettah · 12-13-2006, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Yes, actually, we do want them to forward every complaint that they reasonable believe is legitimate to the FBI.

So, I guess Slick would be better off if DN had just shut down the sites when they received (as I believe you will find they did) a complaint. Their TOS allows them to (as does almost all registrars). That way Slick would be out of pocket on lost income while it is sorted out.

Instead Directnic is trying to ascertain the validity of a complaint before it takes negative action.

From Moniker:

29. AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND
......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...

From GoDaddy:

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.

sarettah · 12-13-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GonZo

This thread gets more entertaining by the hour.

Im off to search for threads of MikeAI being called a "top notch" guy.

Nah, Mike's an asshole

)))))

Pleasurepays · 12-13-2006, 10:18 AM

for all any of you fucking morons know... some girls mom contacted them saying "hey, those are pics of my girl when she was 12", confirmed her identity as well as that of her daughters... they reviewed it and were shocked as hell at what they saw and gave the guy a chance before bringing the full force of the law down on him.

did any of you geniuses consider the fact that they have in-house attorneys making these decisions and it was most likely something done after careful review and consideration of the facts AND the law? do you think it was a decision made on a whim? you think it was "just because"?

anyone has a link? seen the pics in question? know any details?

oh... hahaha.. no.....didn't think so. .... why would a bunch of retards who spend their days arguing about Jews, Arabs and Bush and create such great threads like "what are you listening to right now" and "who was the best guitarist ever" and "whats the best way to sell my sig" need facts and information or the whole story? facts tend to get in the way of drama and sig views.

so yeah, some fucking turd poking clown, turned do-gooder/attention whore wants to boycott them, with no details, no real information, no understanding of the situation... just his interpretation of what might be happening based on a very limited amount of information where he starts assuming and then starts acting on assumptions and hasn't even heard an explanation from the people he is trying to hurt financially.

what a fucking idiot. proof once again that this biz is doomed because of the idiots that are in it... not because of "obscenity"

jimthefiend · 12-13-2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksoul

Uhm, if he doesn't provides the docs his domains are shitcanned
I saw nothing about FBI in this story.

Besides the fact that they have no right to ask for the docs, they're asking
something that proves shit.

Darksoul is a jackass, but he's spot on right here.

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

some girls mom contacted them saying "hey, those are pics of my girl when she was 12", confirmed her identity as well as that of her daughters... they reviewed it and were shocked as hell at what they saw and gave the guy a chance before bringing the full force of the law down on him.

If they confirmed that the site contained pictures of a 12 year old girl, they should have reported it to the FBI, period. The FBI is the proper organization to deal with things.

Trying to conduct their own 2257 inspection is ridiculous.

RawAlex · 12-13-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quick Buck

This guy OWNS this domain name, it is his property, directnic is acting as though it is their property and he is just being permitted to use it.

He has every right to transfer the domain name to another registrar and has no obligation to provide any documentation to directnic. It *is* there right to say "we dont want to be your registrar anymore, please transfer your domains within 30 days as we are closing your account".

Error. From most court rulings, domain names are just about on the same levels as phone numbers. You never "own" then in an outright sense, you are just paying a yearly fee for the right to use them as your contact point. ICANN "owns" the .com domains... the rest is pure fiction.

The only thing he owns is the current rights the domains, subject to the terms of the contract he entered into to get them.

Big John · 12-13-2006, 10:29 AM

Amusing thread in a tragic way. All the uninformed idiots jumping in with their anti-Directnic rhetoric would be the same uninformed idiots shouting at Directnic for allowing reported CP on a domain if they took no action (and of course the CP actually existed. Like 99.9% of the posters in this thread I DO NOT know the full details so can't comment on this particular case).

As they say opinions are like assholes - everyone has them. Sadly far too many love to make fools of themselves by offering them with no true grasp of the details of a situation.

darksoul · 12-13-2006, 10:30 AM

official response from directnic
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=686403

RawAlex · 12-13-2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

If they confirmed that the site contained pictures of a 12 year old girl, they should have reported it to the FBI, period. The FBI is the proper organization to deal with things.

Trying to conduct their own 2257 inspection is ridiculous.

Please, turn off the yellow text and take a deep breath. They asked to see an ID with picture and birthdate. No model information beyond that. This is similar to documents that many content companies have been trying to pass off as model IDs for companies doing their own 2257.

You honestly think it would be better to bring in the FBI rather than that to find a resolution that doesn't involve the feds breaking down doors and locking people up (because that would be what would happen, I can assure you... they would love nothing better than a reason to "take down" a porn webmaster in a very public way).

Again, until there is more known about the complaint or the issue at hand, this is all pretty much fanning of the flames. A deep breath and a cig break (for those who smoke) is certainly in order here.

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big John

Amusing thread in a tragic way. All the uninformed idiots jumping in with their anti-Directnic rhetoric would be the same uninformed idiots shouting at Directnic for allowing reported CP on a domain if they took no action

No one in this thread has said that Directnic, or any other registrar, or anyone else for that matter, should take no action if they spot what they reasonably believe to be CP. That's a gross mis characterization.

BitAudioVideo · 12-13-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

They're giving them the chance to turn over scores of private identification documents of models and conduct a private 2257 investigation is what they're doing.

Does NO ONE in this industry give a rats ass about the privacy of models? Or privacy laws? Once you become a model that's it, it's totally acceptable for your driver's license, passport, social security number, or whatever damn else catches someone's fancy to be passed out like candy, even without legal reason or foundation to do so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

Actually, what you're doing is reacting to a situation that hasn't even come close to being investigated, let alone a conclusion being met.

i keep 2257 info on file for several large affiliate programs as both a primary and secondary producer and have worked with my brother for many years in the content production field. as such i have taken the time to be somewhat informed on the laws in this area.

it is our DUTY as responsable webmasters to protect the privacy of the models. it has a great financial impact on everyone concerned to allow personal information to leak into the wrong hands.

Peaches, it seems as tho you think that BA "jumped the gun" on this but i dont believe thats the case. the fact that directnic believes they have the right to request such information is a big problem.

how many webmasters have they contacted for 2257 who did not come to this board but rather turned over personal information about a model. even if the information on 1 model was turned over to some employee of directnic in my opinion its 1 too many.

RawAlex · 12-13-2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

No one in this thread has said that Directnic, or any other registrar, or anyone else for that matter, should take no action if they spot what they reasonably believe to be CP. That's a gross mis characterization.

No, but what you are suggesting is that nobody should prove model ages or rights to anyone except the FBI (actually, the AG or his appointed reps).

Touches the issue of DMCA... if they were hit and a DMCA complaint, how would you prove rights to the image? Maybe, I dunno... a contract and a model release? Perhaps a contract and the model ID with just the image and the birth date showing?

You are off on a hell of a merry rampage here, but I think you need to slow down and think about how something like this would be handled in general.

I would rather the registrar or the host asks questions rather than just picking up the red phone and calling the feds. It would be nice to think that our industry can somehow manage to control itself for once.

RawAlex · 12-13-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BitAudioVideo

Peaches, it seems as tho you think that BA "jumped the gun" on this but i dont believe thats the case. the fact that directnic believes they have the right to request such information is a big problem.

They didn't ask for personal information - just an ID card with just the image and the birth date visible. No personally identity issue. Go back and read the original post.

bl4h · 12-13-2006, 10:52 AM

I checked out his network and indeed theres some iffy content.

Thanks to people like you we have this problem. We are fighting a beast that we will never win against. If it wasnt for this shit we wouldnt have to defend our right to free speech on a daily basis.

GonZo · 12-13-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Nah, Mike's an asshole

)))))

So am I and so are you!

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Touches the issue of DMCA...

DMCA is not a valid comparison. In a DMCA request, content is deleted from a hosting account, or a hosting provider shuts down said hosting account.

That is a far cry from seizing control of a domain name, preventing someone from posting alternative content, or moving it elsewhere.

DMCA is also a legal process established in law, with ramifications for those that inact its use falsely or without cause.

That's a far cry from an arbitrary, we're shutting down your domains and seizing control if you don't abide by our desire to conduct a 2257 inspection of you.

Pleasurepays · 12-13-2006, 11:10 AM

100 crusading turd burglers

12-13-2006, 08:54 AM	#51
LiveDose Show Yer Tits! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere Out there... Posts: 25,792	This should be interesting... __________________ Scammer Alert: acer19 acer [email protected] [email protected] Money stolen using PayPal

12-13-2006, 09:35 AM	#69
Quick Buck Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Free-Trials.......... Weekly-Payouts..... 100+Sites Posts: 1,026	I think the point of this has gotten confused. What DirectNic did that was wrong is that they locked the account and then demanded documentation in order to unlock the account. If they had simply contacted him and said "We believe the content of your site is potentially illegal" and "we intend to turn the evidence over to the feds and will not allow you to renew the domain with us if you do not provide us with assurance that the content is legal" then nobody would be in an uproar about it. This guy OWNS this domain name, it is his property, directnic is acting as though it is their property and he is just being permitted to use it. He has every right to transfer the domain name to another registrar and has no obligation to provide any documentation to directnic. It is there right to say "we dont want to be your registrar anymore, please transfer your domains within 30 days as we are closing your account". At that point they also have an obligation to refund him some of the money that he paid them to register the domain on his behalf. __________________ $50 FREE TRIALS! Every Day til 2008!!! Only at QuickBuck

12-13-2006, 10:29 AM	#90
Big John Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Location: Never never land Posts: 470	Amusing thread in a tragic way. All the uninformed idiots jumping in with their anti-Directnic rhetoric would be the same uninformed idiots shouting at Directnic for allowing reported CP on a domain if they took no action (and of course the CP actually existed. Like 99.9% of the posters in this thread I DO NOT know the full details so can't comment on this particular case). As they say opinions are like assholes - everyone has them. Sadly far too many love to make fools of themselves by offering them with no true grasp of the details of a situation. __________________

12-13-2006, 10:30 AM	#91
darksoul Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: /root/ Posts: 4,997	official response from directnic http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=686403 __________________ 1337 5y54\|)m1n: 157717888 BM-2cUBw4B2fgiYAfjkE7JvWaJMiUXD96n9tN Cambooth

12-13-2006, 09:21 AM	#63
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	i'd never provide docs to anyone BUT the authorities required under the statute.

12-13-2006, 09:23 AM	#64
Slick Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Houghton, MI Posts: 7,338	Thanks for the support BoyAlley, I greatly appreciate it

12-13-2006, 09:40 AM	#74
pocketkangaroo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 8,452	The funny part about this is that if you swapped DirectNic with GoDaddy, this board would be ready to burn down the GoDaddy headquarters. But because the owner of this company has probably bought a few drinks in his life for people here, they get a free pass.

12-13-2006, 09:56 AM	#81
jimthefiend So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: icq: 121189 Posts: 18,889	Hear hear. Ghey

12-13-2006, 10:18 AM	#86
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	for all any of you fucking morons know... some girls mom contacted them saying "hey, those are pics of my girl when she was 12", confirmed her identity as well as that of her daughters... they reviewed it and were shocked as hell at what they saw and gave the guy a chance before bringing the full force of the law down on him. did any of you geniuses consider the fact that they have in-house attorneys making these decisions and it was most likely something done after careful review and consideration of the facts AND the law? do you think it was a decision made on a whim? you think it was "just because"? anyone has a link? seen the pics in question? know any details? oh... hahaha.. no.....didn't think so. .... why would a bunch of retards who spend their days arguing about Jews, Arabs and Bush and create such great threads like "what are you listening to right now" and "who was the best guitarist ever" and "whats the best way to sell my sig" need facts and information or the whole story? facts tend to get in the way of drama and sig views. so yeah, some fucking turd poking clown, turned do-gooder/attention whore wants to boycott them, with no details, no real information, no understanding of the situation... just his interpretation of what might be happening based on a very limited amount of information where he starts assuming and then starts acting on assumptions and hasn't even heard an explanation from the people he is trying to hurt financially. what a fucking idiot. proof once again that this biz is doomed because of the idiots that are in it... not because of "obscenity"

12-13-2006, 10:52 AM	#97
bl4h Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 1,282	I checked out his network and indeed theres some iffy content. Thanks to people like you we have this problem. We are fighting a beast that we will never win against. If it wasnt for this shit we wouldnt have to defend our right to free speech on a daily basis.

12-13-2006, 11:10 AM	#100
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	100 crusading turd burglers