I Will Organize A Boycott Of DirectNic If They Don't... - Page 5 - GoFuckYourself.com

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

The arrogance from the US (both at govt level and on domain registration) is a fucking joke

Sad but true.........

Pleasurepays · 12-13-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

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

as much as i hate to agree with you, i have always said this from day 1. structure your business appropriately.. operate outside the jurisdiction of the US and continue on living happily ever after. the alternative is to be shut down and sent to prison at any moment because no matter what anyone thinks or feels... it's retarded to spend your days worrying about who is president or what religious nutjobs want to run the country.

this was NEVER a safe business in the US. its is a business that has ALWAYS been under attack.. its a business that ALWAYS will be under attack... and its a business that WILL ALWAYS have more political enemies than allies.

Carrie · 12-13-2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul_Rebel

We moved to Moniker.com after doing some research on this.

How much research?
I'm looking at Moniker's TOS right now.
#28 says:

Quote:

28. PROHIBITED CONDUCT

You agree that the following is a non-exclusive list of actions that are not permitted:
...
intentionally or unintentionally violating any applicable local, state, national or international law, including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any rules of any national or other securities exchange, including, without limitation, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, and any regulations having the force of law;
...
promoting or providing instructional information about illegal activities, promoting physical harm against any group or individual, or promoting any act of cruelty to animals.

Both of the statements above in their TOS apply to child pornography, as it is illegal - and possible CP is what is being investigated here.

Furthermore, Moniker states that they can do exactly what DirectNic has done, in #29:

Quote:

...
Acknowledge and agree that the Registry and Registry Services Provider, acting in consent with the Registry, reserves the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration that it deems necessary, in its discretion (i) to protect the integrity and stability of the registry; (ii) to comply with all applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, in compliance with any dispute resolution process; (iii) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of the Registry as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, representatives, employees, and stockholders; (iv) for violations of the terms and conditions herein; or (v) to correct mistakes made by the Registry or any registrar in connection with a domain name registration, and the Registry also reserves the right to freeze a Registered Name during resolution of a dispute. (3.8.8.)

It doesn't matter where you go. I have yet to see a registrar that does not cover its ass and give itself the right to freeze/lock a domain when something is in question. You agree to giving them that right when you contract their services.

Carrie · 12-13-2006, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

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 CAN'T say 'provide these docs or we're keeping your domains.'

1. They do have a legal standpoint to do so. Slick contracted their services and agreed to their Terms of Service, wherein he agrees that they may freeze/lock, keep, and even sell his domain; he also agrees that they may investigate, document, and report to the authorities any complaint they receive (and freeze/lock domain while any of the above is occurring). (See section 9 of their TOS.)
2. Again, yes they can. He agreed to the contract and gave them that right.

Now, a contract can be legally broken if one party is asking another party to break the law in order to comply, however, DirectNic has not asked Slick to break the law. A model's photo and birthdate does not violate privacy law in the US. Therefore, the contract stands. *shrug*

BoyAlley - you keep going on about how this is a right to free speech issue. How is it so? There is no first amendment violation happening here. No one is being censored. Slick's domains are still in perfect working order, his websites are up, his business is still being conducted. He is not being censored or prohibited from conducting business in any way, shape, or form.

If he does not comply with the TOS (allowing DN to conduct an investigation) in the time that was given him, then his domains will be turned off, but it still will not be a censoring or free speech issue. At that point it will be a breach of contract - on Slick's part.

TampaToker · 12-13-2006, 10:12 PM

Does anyone know if Directnic turned this complaint over to the proper authorities ?

Webby · 12-13-2006, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

as much as i hate to agree with you, i have always said this from day 1. structure your business appropriately.. operate outside the jurisdiction of the US and continue on living happily ever after. the alternative is to be shut down and sent to prison at any moment because no matter what anyone thinks or feels... it's retarded to spend your days worrying about who is president or what religious nutjobs want to run the country.

this was NEVER a safe business in the US. its is a business that has ALWAYS been under attack.. its a business that ALWAYS will be under attack... and its a business that WILL ALWAYS have more political enemies than allies.

I hate to agree with you PP

The little we had left in the US was trivia - most of it was moved out well over 5 years ago in anticipation of some of the issues that have arisen in the past few years.

The basic premise of 2257 could genuinely have been useful in areas of child protection, but unfortunately that appears to have been milked to the point of absurdity and offers little in respect of children. Ironically, the original USC 2257 was rarely (if ever?) enforced - so it's kinda strange to introduce an extension of that in the form of a record-keeping law. OK.. It's a farce - but a sad one which uses kids.

You are prob aware, with odd exceptions, the adult industry in other countries is not a problem. Sure, there are legal and other differences, but the neurotic behavior and instability is not present. For anyone who *seriously* wants to be in this business as their "career", - I'd seriously suggest they take advantage of suitable favorable jurisdictions to operate. Don't think this is an option - more neccessity. (You mentioned stucture above - exactly)

Agree - we all playing games and wasting time with politicians. It has nothing to do with running a business - or even appreciating life in general.

Webby · 12-13-2006, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TampaToker

Does anyone know if Directnic turned this complaint over to the proper authorities ?

Assume you mean law enforcement? Seriously doubt it TT.

DN's solution is to refer the issue to the Center for Missing & Exploited Children - well, it's a weird world with the clueless around

Carrie · 12-14-2006, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

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

Ridiculous. This entire situation is absurd.

Bingo!
Welcome to the world of 2257 & 4472 legislation, set into place by politicians who know nothing about the industry and who could give a rat's ass about the model's privacy.
We've all been worried about this, discussing it, and dealing with it for years. Nice of you to catch up.

The law as it currently stands with the 4472 amendment turns *everyone* into a secondary producer - from the content site that the photographer sells his photos to, to the sponsor who buys a license for them, to the webmaster who shows them on his site, and even to the web host who hosts the site on their servers.
Secondary producers are required by this law to keep in their offices, available during "normal" business hours to any gov't official, full documentation of the model and her signed release. It also requires all of this information to be publicly posted on any website hosting the image.

Imagine that you're an amateur model with her own website. You take your own pictures, or your boyfriend/hubby takes pictures of you. According to this law, you now have to put your full information - including your real name, date of birth, and address - on your website for any pervert or stalker to use at his convenience.

You want to talk about privacy issues? You want to talk about model safety? These laws will put model info into the hands of literally thousands of people that the model does not know. Think of all the affiliates that a company like ARS has. Now imagine a model's documentation going out to every one of those affiliates, and to the company's hosting provider.

The real problem here is not third parties like DirectNic, the real problem is the law itself! Why not spend your effort fighting that instead of screaming at a company who clearly posted their TOS and entered into a legal and binding contract including those TOS with a client?

For the record, if you knew anything about MikeAI, you would know that a model's info would be absolutely safe in his hands. He has worked with many models himself in running his own program, and he knows quite well the risks that these girls take and the trust they put into their photographers.

bizman2960 · 12-14-2006, 12:27 AM

Our only true power in this world is our buying power. Let's actually boycott.

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

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

Ridiculous. This entire situation is absurd.

no.

you love stretching things.

they were expected to find 14 ID's, black out the info and show proof of age for the models in question. not edit "potentially hundreds of thousands of documents"

"show me proof of age for these 14 girls that look under 18" does not mean "2257 inspection"... you would know that by understanding the full requirements of the law.

d00t · 12-14-2006, 12:56 AM

directnic doing this is like a car company revoking your car for speeding.

I am in full support (200+ domains with directnic) of you BoyAlley.

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d00t

directnic doing this is like a car company revoking your car for speeding.

I am in full support (200+ domains with directnic) of you BoyAlley.

No it's not. It's like a landlord who specified in the leasecontract that you couldn't keep pets in his property is politely asking you to proove that the hairy thing that lives in your house is a child and not a dog.

darksoul · 12-14-2006, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

No it's not. It's like a landlord who specified in the leasecontract that you couldn't keep pets in his property is politely asking you to proove that the hairy thing that lives in your house is a child and not a dog.

do you still fail to realize Directnic doesn't own the domain ?

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksoul

do you still fail to realize Directnic doesn't own the domain ?

Neither does slick. He rents it under certain terms.

darksoul · 12-14-2006, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Neither does slick. He rents it under certain terms.

right.
so tell me again whats Directnic place in this ?
they're a fscking service provider, they should do their job and thats it.
Nobody gave them any right to lock anything. ICANN does not give them the right. do you digg ?

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksoul

right.
so tell me again whats Directnic place in this ?
they're a fscking service provider, they should do their job and thats it.
Nobody gave them any right to lock anything. ICANN does not give them the right. do you digg ?

Untill now the only thing they suspended is access to their backend and services.

darksoul · 12-14-2006, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Untill now the only thing they suspended is access to their backend and services.

Nope. They locked the domains so they can't be moved elsewhere. read the initial email and Slick's followup about trying to move them.

bl4h · 12-14-2006, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksoul

right.
so tell me again whats Directnic place in this ?
they're a fscking service provider, they should do their job and thats it.
Nobody gave them any right to lock anything. ICANN does not give them the right. do you digg ?

read their TOS and then come back here and type stuff

BoyAlley · 12-14-2006, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bl4h

read their TOS and then come back here and type stuff

A TOS can not supersede state or federal law, nor can it go against their agreements with ICANN. The question at hand right now, is does their TOS do that.

I have a feeling we'll be hearing from industry attorneys about that subject in the near future.

DWB · 12-14-2006, 12:59 PM

Hmmm... My DVD sales would go through the roof if all you interweb people were shut down.

12-13-2006, 10:12 PM	#205
TampaToker Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Location: Tampa Posts: 5,827	Does anyone know if Directnic turned this complaint over to the proper authorities ? __________________ Icq 247-742-205

12-14-2006, 12:27 AM	#209
bizman2960 Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 358	Our only true power in this world is our buying power. Let's actually boycott. __________________ The Young Sluts!!! BizMan2960 at gmail.com :: ICQ 486-450-912

12-14-2006, 12:56 AM	#211
d00t Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In your mind Posts: 3,766	directnic doing this is like a car company revoking your car for speeding. I am in full support (200+ domains with directnic) of you BoyAlley.

12-14-2006, 12:59 PM	#220
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	Hmmm... My DVD sales would go through the roof if all you interweb people were shut down.