I Will Organize A Boycott Of DirectNic If They Don't... - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

bl4h · 12-13-2006, 11:12 AM

"boyalley supports free speech" or "boyalley supports CP"?

You decide!

GonZo · 12-13-2006, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

100 crusading turd burglers

Sig market is slow.

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

100 crusading turd burglers

You do realize that this is a legitimate debate about legitimate issues don't you?

Do you not feel that a public dialog about this incident is at all warranted?

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bl4h

"boyalley supports free speech" or "boyalley supports CP"?

You decide!

Don't EVEN go there.

I've made my views clear about CP hundreds of times on this and other boards, and have taught and provided technology to the folks at Innocent Images Division of the FBI in the past. I have also donated significant monies to the battle against CP.

I care about the fight against the abuse of children AND maintaining freedom of speech.

These two need not be mutually exclusive.

Now I strongly suggest you not even attempt to continue down that road.

pornguy · 12-13-2006, 11:19 AM

It is sad to see a good idea used wrongly.

Anthony · 12-13-2006, 11:20 AM

Now that DirectNic has put their 2 cents in, after this thread, I can see both sides of the issue.

If the webmaster in question won't provide the data that is requested by DirectNic, DirecNic should bounce them off their network asap, and keep records of the complaint, and the request by DirectNic for age verification of models.

My 2 cents, and frankly, the easiest way to get rid of this "Big Dick" contest.

bl4h · 12-13-2006, 11:21 AM

well in my humble opinion, this isnt a case to support. Not gonna start shit here, just giving my two cents cause i feel this only digs the grave even deeper for this industry.

This isnt a case to support, theres honest breeches of free speech to be defended

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Now I strongly suggest you not even attempt to continue down that road.

You are 100%right. But it amazes me that you can start organizing international boycotts against companies based on nothing more than assumptions and very few facts and yet when someone starts something about you you start threatening that person.

Pleasurepays · 12-13-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

You do realize that this is a legitimate debate about legitimate issues don't you?

Do you not feel that a public dialog about this incident is at all warranted?

dialogue?

pardon me for my superb reading comprehension skills... but the title of the thread and opening remark, is you threatening to hurt DirectNIC financially. thats not "dialogue"... thats a crusader being a crusader. furthermore, you make threats to hurt someone without hearing their side of the story or without gathering facts. thats just idiocy.

if you wanted discussion, you would have posed a question and discussed the viewpoints. i can't imagine whats going on in the deluded mind that equates threats to "discussion"

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

you make threats to hurt someone without hearing their side of the story or without gathering facts. thats just idiocy.

You obviously either 1. haven't read this entire thread, or 2. understood posts. I didn't call for anyone to take any action until we all saw what DirectNic did, which was exactly the point of starting this thread.

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

You are 100%right. But it amazes me that you can start organizing international boycotts against companies based on nothing more than assumptions and very few facts and yet when someone starts something about you you start threatening that person.

There's a big difference between disagreeing with a corporation's internal policies, and accusing someone of supporting CP.

GonZo · 12-13-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

You obviously either 1. haven't read this entire thread, or 2. understood posts. I didn't call for anyone to take any action until we all saw what DirectNic did, which was exactly the point of starting this thread.

I think hes referring to the title of this thread...
" I Will Organize A Boycott Of DirectNic If They Don't..."

Reads like a threat to me.

RawAlex · 12-13-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

You obviously either 1. haven't read this entire thread, or 2. understood posts. I didn't call for anyone to take any action until we all saw what DirectNic did, which was exactly the point of starting this thread.

Only problem is, you have misunderstood entirely what "Directnic did".

Asking for model IDs with no personal information doesn't violate privacy laws.

Take a deep breath and relax. You will feel much better in a minute.

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

You obviously either 1. haven't read this entire thread, or 2. understood posts. I didn't call for anyone to take any action until we all saw what DirectNic did, which was exactly the point of starting this thread.

Well MikeAI said he would look into it way before you started this thread. All you did was hurting their company image and if I were them I would have those company employed attorneys looking into this thread....

Anthony · 12-13-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Well MikeAI said he would look into it way before you started this thread. All you did was hurting their company image and if I were them I would have those company employed attorneys looking into this thread....

DirectNic is a company full of Lawyers, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of Sic em Sig.

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Well MikeAI said he would look into it way before you started this thread. All you did was hurting their company image and if I were them I would have those company employed attorneys looking into this thread....

Oh yes, let's sue Teh BoyAlley for stating his opinion.

How in the hell can an industry of pornographers be so hostile towards free speech?

Some of you people floor me.

quiet · 12-13-2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony

DirectNic is a company full of Lawyers, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of Sic em Sig.

dig420 · 12-13-2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Only problem is, you have misunderstood entirely what "Directnic did".

Asking for model IDs with no personal information doesn't violate privacy laws.

Take a deep breath and relax. You will feel much better in a minute.

No, and if MikeAI didn't want to do business with him that would be understandable as well. However, threatening to keep his domains when they have no legal standpoint to do so, and KNOW they don't, is something else entirely. They're not a host. They're a registrar. They can say 'provide these docs or choose another registrar.' They CAN'T say 'provide these docs or we're keeping your domains.' That's something else entirely. How would you like to see YOUR domains generating money for someone else on parked.com because you didn't want to fuck around putting together paperwork for your registrar?

Want a registrar who's going to make you submit docs or ELSE? Go with directnic. Want a registrar who's going to stfu and do their job? Go somewhere else.

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Oh yes, let's sue Teh BoyAlley for stating his opinion.

How in the hell can an industry of pornographers be so hostile towards free speech?

Some of you people floor me.

Strange how the free speech warrior calls to have every single surfer complaint forwarded to the feds. That will help free speech! Lets give em some nice figures I can see it right in front of me on cnn "fbi received 9223495 reports of child abuse on internet porn sites in the first quarter of 2007". That will make the free speech cause so much easier to defend.

Pleasurepays · 12-13-2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Oh yes, let's sue Teh BoyAlley for stating his opinion.

How in the hell can an industry of pornographers be so hostile towards free speech?

Some of you people floor me.

1) wanting to hurt someones business is not "stating an opinion". "opinion has nothing to do with the complex legal issues involved and potential ramifications for decisions either way.

you should be asking "why don't people support me and the way i am going about this"

2) "free speech" doesn't mean you are free to threaten and make remarks and comments designed to hurt someones business. you apparently (like almost any idiot here) have no idea what "free speech" is. your legal rights to speak out against a government doesn't give you the legal right to calll me a pedophile.

3) the appropriate way to go about it would have been to ask questions... to understand and to make thoughtful decisions from a point of complete understanding... not suggest you want to hurt someones business if they don't comply with your demands.

another example of your misguided behavior is the Adult Friend Finder thing where they were caught red handed stealing from affiliates... you weighed in with zero understanding of the discussion and the issues.

maybe your behavior and the way you go about this things is the reason people don't support you? i don't think it has anything to do with some wide opposition to "free speech"

GonZo · 12-13-2006, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

1) wanting to hurt someones business is not "stating an opinion". "opinion has nothing to do with the complex legal issues involved and potential ramifications for decisions either way.

you should be asking "why don't people support me and the way i am going about this"

2) "free speech" doesn't mean you are free to threaten and make remarks and comments designed to hurt someones business. you apparently (like almost any idiot here) have no idea what "free speech" is. your legal rights to speak out against a government doesn't give you the legal right to calll me a pedophile.

3) the appropriate way to go about it would have been to ask questions... to understand and to make thoughtful decisions from a point of complete understanding... not suggest you want to hurt someones business if they don't comply with your demands.

another example of your misguided behavior is the Adult Friend Finder thing where they were caught red handed stealing from affiliates... you weighed in with zero understanding of the discussion and the issues.

maybe your behavior and the way you go about this things is the reason people don't support you? i don't think it has anything to do with some wide opposition to "free speech"

Backpeddling isnt very pretty . . . no matter what your sexual orientation is.

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

maybe your behavior and the way you go about this things is the reason people don't support you? i don't think it has anything to do with some wide opposition to "free speech"

I believe the majority of people agree with me on this particular issue actually. There are a small handful of vocal people like you, but I think the consensus is that this is not a good policy.

I have not said anything that I know or believe to be untrue about DirectNic, and as far as I've seen, they're not denying the events as reported by Slick.

I don't believe the facts are what's in dispute here. What is in question, is whether or not people agree with their policies and the ways that they've chosen to handle things.

I have every right to provide opinion on that, and if I chose to do so in the future, I'd also have every right to recommend to people that they not do business with DirectNic because of it.

What exactly in all of that do you think is cause that I should have lawyers sicked on me? I'd love to see your logic in that? The United States is not a country where calls for boycott are illegal.

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GonZo

Backpeddling isnt very pretty . . . no matter what your sexual orientation is.

I'm not back peddling at all. I stand by the statements that I have made 100%.

Its just that some on here have been mis characterizing those statements, and I want to be sure my position is clear.

GonZo · 12-13-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I'm not back peddling at all. I stand by the statements that I have made 100%.

Its just that some on here have been mis characterizing those statements, and I want to be sure my position is clear.

Get a refund from AlienQ's School of High Drama... hes not very good at this.

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I'm not back peddling at all. I stand by the statements that I have made 100%.

Its just that some on here have been mis characterizing those statements, and I want to be sure my position is clear.

You went from

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Uhm. Am I the only one that has a problem with 3rd party companies requesting private identification documents for people depicted on a website?

Now any asshat that wants thinks they can request the driver's license, social security number, other personal information, contact details, copies of contracts, physical descriptions, and the favorite food of any model they want any time they want for whatever reason they want?

Making the personal information of models available to federal inspectors is one thing, starting to hand it out freely without any legal cause or reason to any company that requests it is another matter entirely.

Aren't there privacy laws in many states in this country that would forbid this type of disemenation? I'm thinking yes........

to

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I believe one of the major issues at hand is that DirectNic put a lock on the domains so that the person in question wasn't able to transfer them anywhere else.

It was something to the effect of: "do what we tell you to do and provide us with documentation for all models on your sites or we're shutting all of your domains down".

You started of about the models privacy being invaded.... and when that didn't work out because they where only asking for a photo and birthdate you moved on to the locking the domain part. I'm agreeing with the locking the domain part sucked but at the same time I feel that is the most appropriate thing to do. No legit webmaster that follows the law should have problems providing what they requested.

Pleasurepays · 12-13-2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I believe the majority of people agree with me on this particular issue actually. There are a small handful of vocal people like you, but I think the consensus is that this is not a good policy.

I have not said anything that I know or believe to be untrue about DirectNic, and as far as I've seen, they're not denying the events as reported by Slick.

I don't believe the facts are what's in dispute here. What is in question, is whether or not people agree with their policies and the ways that they've chosen to handle things.

I have every right to provide opinion on that, and if I chose to do so in the future, I'd also have every right to recommend to people that they not do business with DirectNic because of it.

What exactly in all of that do you think is cause that I should have lawyers sicked on me? I'd love to see your logic in that? The United States is not a country where calls for boycott are illegal.

simple reasoning 101.

first... you gather information from BOTH sides
second... you carefully ponder the perspectives, views, responsiblities, obligations and rights of both sides
third... you discuss it in an open, unbiased and honest way. giving careful consideration to all the issues involved and the weight of each
fourth... you reach a conclusion
fifth... you decide on a course of action

not

1) some guy says something
2) ignore the other side completely
3) start making wild assumptions and threats
4) respond to those questioning you with the suggestion that they hate free speech.

sarettah · 12-13-2006, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GonZo

So am I and so are you!

Damn straight

RawAlex · 12-13-2006, 12:28 PM

Boyalley, calls for boycotts because of misinformation or outright fabrications would certainly open someone up for all sorts of problems.

You keep yelling "free speech", but you haven't shown yet where any legal free speech has been restricted. Model privacy isn't an issue (they don't want ID's with names or other personal information on them, just a picture and a date of birth visible on what would be an ID card).I am not sure about which leg he ha

You keep yelling "they don't have the right", but their ToS has been reposted any number of times already showing where they are not obliged to provide service for anything illegal. Facing a complaint about CP and the domain holder not being able to willing to provide the needed documents...

It's all high drama, save it for a llama. The only one who should be bitching should be Slick, and after checking out his sites and listening to his operating methods, well...

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Boyalley, calls for boycotts because of misinformation or outright fabrications would certainly open someone up for all sorts of problems.

What have I fabricated or what misinformation do I have?

They asked for driver's license or passports, and they locked the domain. That's my understanding of the events as they have unfolded, and I've not seen anyone from their company deny that.

As for this, all of the other information other than the picture and birthdate can be blacked out. That's something that you invented. I see them say nothing about blacking out information in the original email that they sent to him.

sarettah · 12-13-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

simple reasoning 101.

first... you gather information from BOTH sides
second... you carefully ponder the perspectives, views, responsiblities, obligations and rights of both sides
third... you discuss it in an open, unbiased and honest way. giving careful consideration to all the issues involved and the weight of each
fourth... you reach a conclusion
fifth... you decide on a course of action

not

1) some guy says something
2) ignore the other side completely
3) start making wild assumptions and threats
4) respond to those questioning you with the suggestion that they hate free speech.

Let's give them a fair trial and then hang their asses

.

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

What have I fabricated or what misinformation do I have?

They asked for driver's license or passports, and they locked the domain. That's my understanding of the events as they have unfolded, and I've not seen anyone from their company deny that.

As for this, all of the other information other than the picture and birthdate can be blacked out. That's something that you invented. I see them say nothing about blacking out information in the original email that they sent to him.

read again what they asked for:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...3#post11516193
--------------------------------------------------------
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. We request that this information be submitted to our offices by 4:00pm central time, Monday, December 18, 2006, or we will be forced to close this site down and report it to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Until this matter is cleared up, we are maintaining a legal lock on your account.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Juli Silver Green
Law Clerk
The Producers, Inc
650 Poydras Street, Suite 115
New Orleans, LA 70130
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------------

dig420 · 12-13-2006, 12:36 PM

Boyalley, looks like you're defending true actual freedom from the 'patriotic freedom loving conservatives' yet again. Good job.

What are your domains pleasurepays? I want to do a little snooping around, see if I can get your registrar involved. Maybe give you a little personal perspective on the situation.

sarettah · 12-13-2006, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley;

As for this, all of the other information other than the picture and birthdate can be blacked out. That's something that you invented. I see them say nothing about blacking out information in the original email that they sent to him.

The original request was for id that showed a clear picture and dob, therefore this could be accomplished by blacking out the other personal info.

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

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.

I don't see anything there that says they want "redacted IDs" or "redacted passports", or "please make sure you don't send us personal information about these models, as that's not what we're requesting", or "You can remove anything other than the picture and birthdate", or anything else similar.

"We require a current state issued photo id or passport for the models represented on the followings site"

My take on it: They asked for IDs and Passports, and they said make sure they're legible.

Pleasurepays · 12-13-2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

Boyalley, looks like you're defending true actual freedom from the 'patriotic freedom loving conservatives' yet again. Good job.

What are your domains pleasurepays? I want to do a little snooping around, see if I can get your registrar involved. Maybe give you a little personal perspective on the situation.

i am not saying DirecNIC is right or wrong dipshit. i am saying that BoyAlley is jumping the gun. end of story. a reasonable discussion doesn't begin with threats and 1/2 the story.

Wouldn't expect you to see the differenc in your perfect "its us against them" Utopia ... where your world would be perfect if there wasn't an opposing viewpoint to yours.

Funny that you think like Hitler and mock others for supporting the infringing on your "freedoms"... when your remarks are almost always that of someone who would joyously execute every man, woman and child who dissagreed with you.

Pleasurepays · 12-13-2006, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I don't see anything there that says they want "redacted IDs" or "redacted passports", or "please make sure you don't send us personal information about these models, as that's not what we're requesting", or "You can remove anything other than the picture and birthdate", or anything else similar.

"We require a current state issued photo id or passport for the models represented on the followings site"

My take on it: They asked for IDs and Passports, and they said make sure they're legible.

they are asking for proof of age you fucking twit. nothing more. the harder you try, the sillier you look.

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I don't see anything there that says they want "redacted IDs" or "redacted passports", or "please make sure you don't send us personal information about these models, as that's not what we're requesting", or "You can remove anything other than the picture and birthdate", or anything else similar.

"We require a current state issued photo id or passport for the models represented on the followings site"

My take on it: They asked for IDs and Passports, and they said make sure they're legible.

You are making your own sentence, the original was:
"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."
Why are you trying to spread partial information?

RawAlex · 12-13-2006, 12:48 PM

Boyalley, come on. Save the drama for your llama. They asked to see a model ID to see image and DOB. everything else can be blacked out (and would similarly be in a DMCA request, which this is very similar to).

You are trying to create drama where not exists, because all your other points have petered out.

stickyfingerz · 12-13-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

Boyalley, looks like you're defending true actual freedom from the 'patriotic freedom loving conservatives' yet again. Good job.

What are your domains pleasurepays? I want to do a little snooping around, see if I can get your registrar involved. Maybe give you a little personal perspective on the situation.

Stop making this a left and right thing. Im on the Right, and I think what they are doing is totally wrong. Dont politicize an issue doesnt need it.

RawAlex · 12-13-2006, 12:48 PM

(god knows something is wrong in the world when I am agreeing with Pleasurepays.... yow!)

stickyfingerz · 12-13-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Boyalley, come on. Save the drama for your llama. They asked to see a model ID to see image and DOB. everything else can be blacked out (and would similarly be in a DMCA request, which this is very similar to).

You are trying to create drama where not exists, because all your other points have petered out.

That would require the people holding the 2257 info to give out that information to all affiliates. In my opinion that should not be allowed. Privacy for the models should be respected first and foremost.

teenfunsfan · 12-13-2006, 12:50 PM

Directnic has my full support for their actions

V_RocKs · 12-13-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

1) wanting to hurt someones business is not "stating an opinion". "opinion has nothing to do with the complex legal issues involved and potential ramifications for decisions either way.

you should be asking "why don't people support me and the way i am going about this"

2) "free speech" doesn't mean you are free to threaten and make remarks and comments designed to hurt someones business. you apparently (like almost any idiot here) have no idea what "free speech" is. your legal rights to speak out against a government doesn't give you the legal right to calll me a pedophile.

3) the appropriate way to go about it would have been to ask questions... to understand and to make thoughtful decisions from a point of complete understanding... not suggest you want to hurt someones business if they don't comply with your demands.

another example of your misguided behavior is the Adult Friend Finder thing where they were caught red handed stealing from affiliates... you weighed in with zero understanding of the discussion and the issues.

maybe your behavior and the way you go about this things is the reason people don't support you? i don't think it has anything to do with some wide opposition to "free speech"

I think BoyAlley has it right... You have it wrong...

The company in question is threatening to go beyond their legal abilities and shut down Slick. So is it not right for someone else to call for a legal boycott of someones business because they employ questionable tactics? I think it is completely founded and the right thing to do.

stickyfingerz · 12-13-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

The original request was for id that showed a clear picture and dob, therefore this could be accomplished by blacking out the other personal info.

Who is doing the blacking out? The company providing the content to the affiliate, or the affiliate?

teenfunsfan · 12-13-2006, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

That would require the people holding the 2257 info to give out that information to all affiliates. In my opinion that should not be allowed. Privacy for the models should be respected first and foremost.

yes, that is what should be done. That would end the business of shady people trying to hide that they don't have proper documents for their models.

V_RocKs · 12-13-2006, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teenfunsfan

Directnic has my full support for their actions

I have to laugh because you obviously posted this with this nick to make a statement...

bl4h · 12-13-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

I think BoyAlley has it right... You have it wrong...

The company in question is threatening to go beyond their legal abilities and shut down Slick. So is it not right for someone else to call for a legal boycott of someones business because they employ questionable tactics? I think it is completely founded and the right thing to do.

but its not beyond their legal abilities.

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.
You agree that we reserve the right to immediately discontinue your use of our Services or System and seize control of your account(s) and all domain names within your account(s) immediately and without notice to you upon a determination that you have violated this section. You further agree that if you fail to pay us any penalties assessed under this section, we may auction off any and all of the domain names within your account(s) to satisfy your debt to us.
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.

theres more just read the terms

teenfunsfan · 12-13-2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teenfunsfan

yes, that is what should be done. That would end the business of shady people trying to hide that they don't have proper documents for their models.

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

I have to laugh because you obviously posted this with this nick to make a statement...

Good to see that some people actually know what is going on.

GonZo · 12-13-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Let's give them a fair trial and then hang their asses

.

A jury of their peers?

stickyfingerz · 12-13-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teenfunsfan

yes, that is what should be done. That would end the business of shady people trying to hide that they don't have proper documents for their models.

Listen do you understand what an affiliate is? Slick is an affiliate using content from programs that hold the 2257 information for the content they provide. If affiliates have the rights to get 2257 information for any picture, then privacy for any model is out the window.

What you are suggesting would totally eliminate any promotion and money making done by the little guy. The whole industry would fall into the control of only large companies, and alot of people would be out of work.

12-13-2006, 11:19 AM	#105
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	It is sad to see a good idea used wrongly. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

12-13-2006, 11:20 AM	#106
Anthony Keyboard Warrior Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: One of the outer rings of Hell Posts: 9,653	Now that DirectNic has put their 2 cents in, after this thread, I can see both sides of the issue. If the webmaster in question won't provide the data that is requested by DirectNic, DirecNic should bounce them off their network asap, and keep records of the complaint, and the request by DirectNic for age verification of models. My 2 cents, and frankly, the easiest way to get rid of this "Big Dick" contest. __________________

12-13-2006, 11:21 AM	#107
bl4h Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 1,282	well in my humble opinion, this isnt a case to support. Not gonna start shit here, just giving my two cents cause i feel this only digs the grave even deeper for this industry. This isnt a case to support, theres honest breeches of free speech to be defended Last edited by bl4h; 12-13-2006 at 11:23 AM..

12-13-2006, 11:12 AM	#101
bl4h Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 1,282	"boyalley supports free speech" or "boyalley supports CP"? You decide!

12-13-2006, 12:28 PM	#128
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Boyalley, calls for boycotts because of misinformation or outright fabrications would certainly open someone up for all sorts of problems. You keep yelling "free speech", but you haven't shown yet where any legal free speech has been restricted. Model privacy isn't an issue (they don't want ID's with names or other personal information on them, just a picture and a date of birth visible on what would be an ID card).I am not sure about which leg he ha You keep yelling "they don't have the right", but their ToS has been reposted any number of times already showing where they are not obliged to provide service for anything illegal. Facing a complaint about CP and the domain holder not being able to willing to provide the needed documents... It's all high drama, save it for a llama. The only one who should be bitching should be Slick, and after checking out his sites and listening to his operating methods, well...

12-13-2006, 12:36 PM	#132
dig420 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 9,240	Boyalley, looks like you're defending true actual freedom from the 'patriotic freedom loving conservatives' yet again. Good job. What are your domains pleasurepays? I want to do a little snooping around, see if I can get your registrar involved. Maybe give you a little personal perspective on the situation.

12-13-2006, 12:48 PM	#138
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Boyalley, come on. Save the drama for your llama. They asked to see a model ID to see image and DOB. everything else can be blacked out (and would similarly be in a DMCA request, which this is very similar to). You are trying to create drama where not exists, because all your other points have petered out.

12-13-2006, 12:48 PM	#140
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	(god knows something is wrong in the world when I am agreeing with Pleasurepays.... yow!)

12-13-2006, 12:50 PM	#142
teenfunsfan Registered User Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 74	Directnic has my full support for their actions