Originally Posted by PMdave (Post 11520295)

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.

Originally Posted by V_RocKs (Post 11520786)

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.

Originally Posted by BoyAlley (Post 11520406)

Originally Posted by bl4h (Post 11520846)

but its not beyond their legal abilities

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 11520779)

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.

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11520900)

Read the TOS. end of story. they can lock the domain. If you are a lawyer... then please expand with your legal analysis and post the relevant laws and cases as they might relate to this issue. otherwise, you are making arguments relying on the fact that no one else is going to take the time to look everything up and to show they they are acting within the law. Personally, i would be willing to assume that a group of attorneys on staff are probably thinking the issue through a little better than a bunch of fucking retards on gfy.com

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 11520872)

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.

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 11520872)

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.

Originally Posted by teenfunsfan (Post 11521142)

yes and that is what will happen anyway, only it will happen much more sooner if more crap like this happens

Originally Posted by dig420 (Post 11521099)

What are your domains pleasurepays? Just curious...

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11521178)

It just occured to me that you are like BoyAlley. You hate... but you rationalize your hate as being ok and "good hate" while the percieved hate of others is "wrong hate". Its soo weird in its obvious contradiction that its oddly fun to watch.

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11521178)

It just occured to me that you are like BoyAlley. You hate... but you rationalize your hate as being ok and "good hate" while the percieved hate of others is "wrong hate". Its soo weird in its obvious contradiction that its oddly fun to watch.

Originally Posted by BoyAlley (Post 11520909)

Originally Posted by bl4h (Post 11521216)

oh ok, i disagree

There nothing wrong with those terms from a business standpoint.

This is about some guy who has underage looking chicks on his network. Probably generating thousands of complaints and internet porn protesters that will vote against us given the chance.

Wether its legal or not, its no good for directnic or this industry imho. Never will undocumented underage looking nude chicks do any good for this business as a whole.

its very black and white. Is this hard for you to grasp?

Originally Posted by dig420 (Post 11521191)

What are your domains, Pat Robertson? Mr. Moral Majority? Huh?

Originally Posted by bl4h (Post 11521216)

oh ok, i disagree

There nothing wrong with those terms from a business standpoint.

This is about some guy who has underage looking chicks on his network. Probably generating thousands of complaints and internet porn protesters that will vote against us given the chance.

Wether its legal or not, its no good for directnic or this industry imho. Never will undocumented underage looking nude chicks do any good for this business as a whole.

its very black and white. Is this hard for you to grasp?

Originally Posted by dig420 (Post 11521234)

Neither will copyright violations. Neither will spam. Neither will circle jerk exit consoles. Neither will free trials that turn into 40 dollar memberships. Neither will a million other things that go on in this business.

The question is: Does your registrar have the right to take your domain from you?

It's that black and white.

Originally Posted by BoyAlley (Post 11521253)

As I've said before, if DirectNic doesn't want to be his registrar of record anymore because they're not comfortable with his content, they should tell him to move his domains someplace else, not put a lock on them so he can't do that, and then threaten to shut him down if he doesn't comply by sending them model IDs.

If they think the content is CP, they should report it to the authorities and let them make a determination and take action, or not, from there.
:2 cents:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 11520795)

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

Originally Posted by dig420 (Post 11521234)

Neither will copyright violations. Neither will spam. Neither will circle jerk exit consoles. Neither will free trials that turn into 40 dollar memberships. Neither will a million other things that go on in this business.

The question is: Does your registrar have the right to take your domain from you?

It's that black and white.

Originally Posted by bizzking (Post 11521259)

Boyalley, two thumbs up from here.

It is nice to see an educated person on this forum whom stands up for what they believe in.

A response from direcnic is in order. They seem like a good company, and MikeAI is a great guy.

The only thing i feel that should have been done is better communication on both parties.

Originally Posted by bizzking (Post 11521259)

Also, people, keep in mind. This isn't an arguement about a domain, or a person, it is an arguement towards the policy of direcnic.

Originally Posted by BoyAlley (Post 11521253)

If DirectNic doesn't want to be his registrar of record anymore because they're not comfortable with his content, they should tell him to move his domains someplace else, not put a lock on them so he can't do that, and then threaten to shut him down if he doesn't comply by sending them model :2 cents:

Originally Posted by bl4h (Post 11521297)

ah but youre thinking too broad. This is about underage looking chicks and questionable content. When they take away a domain that doesnt cause problems i will be there to defend it :thumbsup

Originally Posted by teenfunsfan (Post 11521302)

I think they did the right thing and they communicated properly, there are lot of other registrars that would have just pulled the plug.

Originally Posted by BoyAlley (Post 11521308)

Originally Posted by dig420 (Post 11521357)

The issue isn't that they asked for them. The issue is that they will take his domains for themselves if he doesn't produce them. Does that clarify things somewhat?

Originally Posted by wig (Post 11521416)

There are so many ironies in so many of the posts in these threads that i had to come out to laugh publicly. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by dig420 (Post 11521094)

As far as I can see, about 99% of the 'take his domain' crowd are asshat conservatives. The live and let live crowd, right? lol... I congratulate for showing TRUE Goldwater type conservatism on this issue rather than the Jerry Falwell type conservatism Pleasurepays and most of the others display.

Originally Posted by BoyAlley (Post 11521483)

Originally Posted by sarettah (Post 11521277)

Does not matter as far as I'm concerned.

Like I said earlier, I took down all sponsor images from anything I had because I did not have the docs for them. The only images I use now are ones that I have docs for. Made a bunch of my images unusable because I could not get the content providers to give me the docs or could not locate the original provider to get them from. But I don't lose sleep worrying that someone will check and I won't be compliant.

Originally Posted by BoyAlley (Post 11517196)

I Will Organize A Boycott Of DirectNic.
This post is long and serious, $postcount++; need not bother with this thread.


I like to consider myself a fair minded individual, and tend not to take things too seriously that don't deserve the attention. But the more I think about this particular incident, the more upset I'm getting.

As a strong proponent for first amendment rights, recent actions by DirectNic raise serious concern with me about maintaining the free and open exchange of information on the internet. THAT is serious enough of a cause for me to pay some time and attention to.

For those of you that haven't read the thread, DirectNic recently DEMANDED to see confidential 2257 documentation for ALL models appearing on the websites of an individual that was running TGPs on them. These personal identification documents, which are required to be kept by federal law, are by statute only to be inspected by the Attorney General of the United States of America, or his designee. The Attorney General has publicly chosen the Federal Bureau of Investigations as said designee.

For a third party company such as DirectNic to demand to see those personally identifying documents, including drivers licenses, is wrong. Period!

The significance of this particular incident are of little concern to me compared to the broader scope and consequences of such a policy being in place.

DirectNic is holding this individual's domains hostage, putting a lock on them so that he can't even transfer them to a different registrar. If DirectNic were no longer comfortable being the registrar of record for these domains, they should allow this individual to transfer them. If DirectNic believes that illegal material is contained on these domains, they should notify his host, the proper authorities, and appropriate third party advocacy groups.

Registrars are not legal authorities, and they are not the internet police.

If there is a concern about the nature of specific content, the legal governmental authorities have the ability to institute an investigation to determine if any laws are being broken, or if anyone is being victimized.

Registrars should NOT under ANY circumstances put an individual in the position of choosing to either 1 lose their domains and significant business, or 2 release personal information about scores of individuals, potentially breaking numerous privacy laws in the process.

Our rights to freedom of expression, and the right to privacy of tens of thousands of individuals, are at odds with this policy. It needs to stop, and it needs to stop NOW.

If it doesn't, I am personally willing to put forth considerable time and resources to make sure that the entire adult entertainment industry, and other industries and organizations that take a stand for freedom of speech and exchange of information on the internet, are notified about this policy.

I will also call for a full and complete boycott of DirectNic and will work with other registrars to find appropriate alternatives for individuals to transfer their domains to, and register new domains with.

I ask others that are advocates of freedom of speech, and personal privacy, to take a stand with me.

Originally Posted by Kimmykim (Post 11521535)

This certainly qualifies for dumbest post of the year.

Originally Posted by wig (Post 11521416)

There are so many ironies in so many of the posts in these threads that i had to come out to laugh publicly. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by V_RocKs (Post 11521624)

OK... So they are within their legal means...

Let's look at slavery... It was legal in 1820 but not everyone agreed with it and many in the North boycotted Southern companies that used slave labor.

Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 11521566)

Am I the only one who sees the fallout of this whole thing?

Originally Posted by Kimmykim (Post 11521535)

This certainly qualifies for dumbest post of the year.

Originally Posted by BoyAlley (Post 11519320)