GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 4 of 6 < 123 4 56 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   I Will Organize A Boycott Of DirectNic If They Don't... (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=686272)

GonZo 12-13-2006 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11520370)
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 (Post 11520370)
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 (Post 11520397)
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 (Post 11520417)

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 (Post 11520417)

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 (Post 11516193)
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 (Post 11519953)

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 (Post 11520406)
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 (Post 11519940)
So am I and so are you!
Damn straight :thumbsup

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 (Post 11520585)
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 (Post 11520536)
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 :2 cents:




.

PMdave 12-13-2006 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyAlley (Post 11520616)
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 (Post 11520655)
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 (Post 11520667)
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 (Post 11520667)
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 (Post 11520655)
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. :2 cents:

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 (Post 11520761)
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 (Post 11520370)
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 (Post 11520656)
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 (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.
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 (Post 11520782)
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 (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.
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 (Post 11520799)
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 (Post 11520804)
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 (Post 11520632)
Let's give them a fair trial and then hang their asses :2 cents:




.
A jury of their peers?

stickyfingerz 12-13-2006 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by teenfunsfan (Post 11520799)
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.

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE 12-13-2006 01:02 PM
Quote:
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.

Nicely put... That was prolly the most valid point made in this thread...

Pleasurepays 12-13-2006 01:02 PM
Quote:
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.
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

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE 12-13-2006 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyAlley (Post 11520406)
I believe the majority of people agree with me on this particular issue actually.
Make a poll and find out.... :thumbsup

BoyAlley 12-13-2006 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bl4h (Post 11520846)
but its not beyond their legal abilities
I have never anywhere on this board said it is beyond their legal abilities to request model ids. What I have said is:

It's a WRONG policy for them to have. Legal rights or not, it's NOT the RIGHT thing to do in my opinion.

and

It "MAY", and I've stressed that word, violate privacy laws of certain countries and/or states to turn over identification documents of models.

As I keep saying, I'm not an attorney. I'll let those that are talk about legalities.

I honestly don't even think this needs to be an issue of what's legal for them to ask for or not. It's a simple matter of what's good policy vs. what's bad policy. I think this is bad policy, and I think if they keep it, we as an industry should not support them.

Simple as that.

dig420 12-13-2006 01:24 PM
Quote:
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.
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.

dig420 12-13-2006 01:25 PM
Quote:
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
What are your domains pleasurepays? Just curious...

teenfunsfan 12-13-2006 01:30 PM
Quote:
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.
yes and that is what will happen anyway, only it will happen much more sooner if more crap like this happens

teenfunsfan 12-13-2006 01:31 PM
Quote:
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.
So it's better to have work and ignore these issues than to have a clean house? Very nice....really

dig420 12-13-2006 01:32 PM
Quote:
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
What are your sites, Jimmy Swaggart? We're all curious.

Pleasurepays 12-13-2006 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dig420 (Post 11521099)
What are your domains pleasurepays? Just curious...
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.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:16 PM.
Page 4 of 6 < 123 4 56 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123