GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 5 of 6 < 1234 5 6 >
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)

dig420 12-13-2006 01:36 PM
Quote:
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.
What are your domains, Pat Robertson? Mr. Moral Majority? Huh?

teenfunsfan 12-13-2006 01:36 PM
Quote:
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.
:thumbsup :thumbsup

bl4h 12-13-2006 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyAlley (Post 11520909)
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.
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?

jscott 12-13-2006 01:41 PM
BoyAlley, great thread man

:thumbsup:

i support 110%

dig420 12-13-2006 01:43 PM
Quote:
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?
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.

Pleasurepays 12-13-2006 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dig420 (Post 11521191)
What are your domains, Pat Robertson? Mr. Moral Majority? Huh?
now its about morality? ... you have to politicize things and retreat to political "us against them" arguments that you are comfortable with because otherwise, the arguments relevant to the issues at hand are losing arguments.

BoyAlley 12-13-2006 01:46 PM
Quote:
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?

You're certainly entitled to not take issue with their policy, and register domains with them if you're comfortable.

My position is this:

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.

I personally would not be comfortable being with a registrar that has the types of policies that they've apparently put in place, that are manifesting themselves in what appear to be pseudo 2257 like inspections.
 :2 cents:

teenfunsfan 12-13-2006 01:46 PM
Quote:
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.
It's nice to see that you just ignore the issue of Slick linking from this sites to illegal content. Seems you just don't care. By ignoring the problem you solved it, congratulations. Dig420 for president....(you can't do a worse job than GWB with this strategy)

bizzking 12-13-2006 01:46 PM
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.

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.

teenfunsfan 12-13-2006 01:47 PM
Quote:
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:
:thumbsup :thumbsup for Directnic to have the balls to actually kick some ass

sarettah 12-13-2006 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 11520795)
Who is doing the blacking out? The company providing the content to the affiliate, or the affiliate?
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.

bl4h 12-13-2006 01:51 PM
Quote:
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.
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

teenfunsfan 12-13-2006 01:51 PM
Quote:
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.
I think they did the right thing and they communicated properly, there are lot of other registrars that would have just pulled the plug.

BoyAlley 12-13-2006 01:52 PM
Quote:
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.
Exactly, I've said very early on that this isn't about Slick or his sites. I'm making no judgment about them one way or another. I've also said that I don't know Mike, and he could very well be a great guy.

But sometimes good people come up with bad policy, that in 1 particular instance may seem appropriate, but on a larger scale, raise serious first amendment and privacy concerns.

:2 cents:

sarettah 12-13-2006 01:52 PM
Quote:
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:
In case you missed it in either this thread or other threads (can't keep track of this shit today) If you check the various registrars, they all have policies that allow them to grab your domains for pretty much any reason they want.

At least DN is giving someone a chance to prove they are legal before pulling the plug.



/.

dig420 12-13-2006 01:53 PM
Quote:
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
Domains that don't cause problems don't need defense. It's not Curious George that needs defending from the bookburners, it's Fahrenheit 451 and Lolita. It hasn't been shown that he's committed ANY offense. It HAS been shown that he needs to produce paperwork for his registrar or his registrar will keep his domain.

Too difficult for you?

dig420 12-13-2006 01:54 PM
Quote:
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.
Maybe you should name one. At the same time, you could name a couple of your sites.

PMdave 12-13-2006 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyAlley (Post 11521308)

But sometimes good people come up with bad policy, that in 1 particular instance may seem appropriate, but on a larger scale, raise serious first amendment and privacy concerns.
ok tell me where the first amendment and/or privacy is/are involved.
reminder: they asked for a governement issued id where the picture and date of birth were clearly visible.

dig420 12-13-2006 01:59 PM
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?

PMdave 12-13-2006 02:02 PM
Quote:
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?
I understand that part. And that's their policy. Policy every custumor volontury accepted.
But get lost with first amendment and privacy BS.

wig 12-13-2006 02:09 PM
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

teenfunsfan 12-13-2006 02:17 PM
Quote:
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
:thumbsup :thumbsup

BoyAlley 12-13-2006 02:18 PM
FSC Says: DirectNic Violating Privacy Laws, Requests Are Illegal

stickyfingerz 12-13-2006 02:20 PM
Quote:
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.
Hey if the porn industry crumbles the economy will take a big ass hit worldwide lol. I dont see it happening that way though. Money is the common denominator here. :winkwink:

GonZo 12-13-2006 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyAlley (Post 11521483)
Guess the boycott line wasnt getting you very far?

stickyfingerz 12-13-2006 02:25 PM
Quote:
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.
I do the same, and none of my stuff is all that questionable. I own enough content of my own that I can use my own for promotion. And to be honest alot of stuff on Slicks site does make me cringe a bit, but thats not the registars right to police in my opinion. Certainly its not their right to hold his domains hostage.

Tom_PM 12-13-2006 02:25 PM
If a TOS said a company can take your first-born son if you dont dance naked on midsummers eve, it does not supercede the law.

Kimmykim 12-13-2006 02:25 PM
Quote:
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.
This certainly qualifies for dumbest post of the year.

Anthony 12-13-2006 02:30 PM
Am I the only one who sees the fallout of this whole thing?

teenfunsfan 12-13-2006 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimmykim (Post 11521535)
This certainly qualifies for dumbest post of the year.
Finally someone that has some brains :thumbsup :thumbsup

V_RocKs 12-13-2006 02:35 PM
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.

GonZo 12-13-2006 02:37 PM
Quote:
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
Weve been laughing all day. Im not sure which is funnier.
The thread itself or some peoples newly found ethics?

PMdave 12-13-2006 02:37 PM
Quote:
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.
yup... and I even believe childporn was acceptable in those days

DirtyJs 12-13-2006 02:39 PM
I must say this.. I do agree that the way they went about this all, being wrong.. BUT, I must say.. Everyone should do themselves a favor and put this fucking idiot on ignore..

BoyAlley 12-13-2006 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 11521566)
Am I the only one who sees the fallout of this whole thing?
No, just most people that are intelligent and insightful enough to understand the ramifications of things like this aren't being as vocal as certain others are in this thread.

dig420 12-13-2006 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimmykim (Post 11521535)
This certainly qualifies for dumbest post of the year.
Turns out he was 100% legally, morally and ethically correct. What's so dumb about it?

Doctor Dre 12-13-2006 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyAlley (Post 11519320)
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.
How are the people dealing with Mike not objective ? They have inside view of who the guy is...

In years in this business i've heard Mikes names hundreads of times and it was never about anything bad.

I'm in NO way saying what is beeing done is right, but judging before knowing all the facts is harsh for the person beeing judged.

teenfunsfan 12-13-2006 02:51 PM
BoyAlley should open his own registrar

Webby 12-13-2006 03:04 PM
Damn... this is easy shit to resolve - and, as far as I'm concerned - tho lot is fucking finished.

Means:

All servers, domains, payment processors are removed from US jurisdiction

That wasted almost an hour - but worth every dime. Suggest any non-US webmaster do exactly the same. The arrogance from the US (both at govt level and on domain registration) is a fucking joke and not worth wasting time reading any more spewage about laws or "rules".


Have a nice day

BusterBunny 12-13-2006 03:19 PM
200...........


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:54 AM.
Page 5 of 6 < 1234 5 6 >
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