hehe,
don't you have a better comeback :1orglaugh this is so overused
you just get a bit more creative.

Someone should check your meds, seriously. Go back and read what I was replying to.

Apparently not.

Good question though. :D

I don't have a rant about the issue... actually, I am the anti-rant. There is a whole bunch of ranting a raving and spewing going on around this issue..

"freedom of speech"

"they aren't the police"

"They ain't the FBI"

"they have no right to steal his domains!".

Tons and tons of ranting, and very few facts. My whole deal on this from the start has been very simply: Until you and I know more and have a better understanding of the situation, there is nothing that is going to be said here that is useful for anyone. People are pissing all over Directnic without having a clue.

The only things we have seen so far are slick's sites, the sites he approved links to, and what he has had to say on the issue.

Until that changes, I think all of the ranting and raving about "has no right" and "not the police" isn't doing much at this point.

Wow, I hope I never have to face a jury of my peers full of people like you. You've expanded the scope of the discussion to include your own judgments instead of the facts. I'd be hanged over jaywalking if you were representative of the jury.

That's one of the more interesting parallel comparisons I've read so far.

Nope, but let's say you are RENTING an apparently, and the landlord comes just as some guy selling drugs comes out of your kitchen. Guess what? He would certainly have a good case for kicking your ass out.

Everyone makes the mistake of thinking that domains are bought property... they are not. They are leaseholds.

Jact, inadvertantly, you just learned very important lesson in life.

Juries, despite some beliefs and fantasies are made of people like Alex, me and much much worse than that, and this will be YOUR reality in court, if you ever get there.

Live your life accordingly, your asshole will thank you for it.

No, I am just asking you... very seriously, what did you ask your legal advisors about? What facts did you give them? What information did you have? What did you give them to base their opinion on?

I really want to know. My words were just what I figured you could tell them because it was all you know.

Sadly I do believe you're right Serge. I've been on the sidelines or involved in enough litigation in my lifetime to know that people can't help but interject their own skew on things.

Someone hearing you say the sky is blue could mean an unlimited number of things to an unlimited number of people, because "blue" is not a statically defined representation.

Alex, I think the question here is, would the landlord have the right to say "Not only am I kicking you out, but I'm also making sure you can't rent another apartment anywhere else, ever again, until you prove to me you weren't buying drugs."

I stuck to what DirectNIC requested, I provided all threads on GFY for reference, including DirectNIC's statement. This has little to do as far as DirectNIC has said to what sites he is linking to, unless I missed something.

I requested from multiple sources to get a broader response, one lawyer from the FSC saying it's wrong does not truly make it wrong.

I may have a ton of my own opinions on what's right or wrong in the matter, but I'd like to know where the legalities stand, as they directly or indirectly will impact my business.

Is that all?? You care what people say on GFY that much that you ended up with every 2nd - 5th post in every thread about the subject. Odd.

Remember, a jury of his peers said OJ was innocent. As they say, juries are usually made of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

Ownership is subject to your regional law I do believe. That's another point I have requested clarification from council on, as it has bearing on everything we do.

Edit: If my bank doesn't like my curtains, they aren't going to foreclose. So ownership is a big issue in this I'd think.

I got called for Jury duty, they asked what I did for a living.. I told them I produced porn.. Suddenly I wasn't qualified. :upsidedow

Webby, I care very much about what people say because it is a feeding frenzy. Maybe you have never seen these things before, but people all pile onto one side of a discussion, and are about ready to hang the other side by their balls... and in the end, turns out things aren't exactly like the "offended" person said, and things are much different in the end.

I don't expect there to be 3 or 4 10 page threads if it turns out Directnic was in the right.

My feeling is that there is way more to this story than Slick is telling us, and until we know that, much is speculation based on only the information he is providing. The silence from Directnic is deafening and also very likely with reason or purpose. Very few people have taken a moment to consider what that silence means. Most just brush it off as an admission of guilt.

There are three sides to every story... and so far we haven't even heard all of 1 side. Rushing to get the lynching ropes out is putting the cart far before the horse.

No, but if I paint my house pink, according to my HOA TOS, they can legally fine me and put a lien on my house. Even though having a pink house isn't illegal in my state.

A fine and a lien is a far cry from removal of property though. However; that is a valid point.

Absolutely, tough the smart thing would be to leave and call the cops ...

On the other hand, if the landlord wants to be a vigilante, he can ask ( I repeat ASK, not kick out ) that the renter vacate the premises. In case of refusal, back to the cops.


But there is one hing I know that the landlord cannot do is to put a new lock on his door, preventing him from accessing his dewling and property... unless the landlord has a court order ( and in certain states with a sheriff )...

But you know better...


PS: did you get your wire ?

exactly my point.
There are two things one can do:
1) avoid trials at all costs
2) prepare for martyrdom or poverty, or both when one is getting sued by the government which has an unlimited resources and defendant has to spend millions sometimes and the win in court has a sizable price tag.

Thanks to the cheap lesson by Steve Cohen (sex.com) I always stuck to the 1st option.

Yes, but again, you are making a major mistake here. You are assuming that YOUR region has anything to do with it - it does not. The registration agreement that Slick entered into is executed in the state of Louisianna,

You only have to go as far as the sex.com saga to realize that domains are not property in and of themselves, just something you are granted the rights to use in return for a yearly fee (a leasehold).

The registrar is much more like a landlord than a real estate agent, they don't sell and walk away, they lease, collect the rent, and make the sure everything works (and that things point to the domain servers we provide, etc). Both sides have some rights, both sides have obligations, and as a result both sides have the obligation to meet those rights.

I would personally prefer option 1, even if you win in court, your life could be permanently altered as you've said. It costs money to win, sometimes more money then you're entitled to in the end. I guess it boils down to, freedom ain't cheap.

Actually, you're assuming that I was assuming that it was MY region that mattered. :pimp

If they are like a landlord however, there are certain limitations placed on both parties, some say parties have overstepped, some say they have not. I'm merely trying to find out how it impacts my business with my registrar so I can continue or modify how I do business.

Renting is completely different and not compatible at all, for example you can not sell a rental contract but you can sell a domain name, you can't sell something that is not your property.

I know DN are not based in California, and I can't really bother lokking into laws regarding how things work in Atlanta or where ever they're based.
But the following sounds about right:

Intresting,i was just read one old tutorial on gfy how directnic is better of other registars like godaddy and other cheap registers,and now this happen.

But the neighborhood association, which has no ownership rights, can kick you out for that.

You gave them the right when you purchased the house and signed the neighborhood association agreement (which if you didn't do you would not have been able to buy the house - whch is why a big buying point on my house was no neighborhood association)

Here's the thing. In order to remove someone from an apartment, there is a process, spelled out in law and in the rental agreement. In domains, there is a process... spelled out mostly in the rental agreement, because outside of sex.com and a few others, there is little beyond straight contract law supporting this stuff.

The landlord needs to do what the landlord needs to do. He doesn't say "well, maybe the electric company guy will say something" or "maybe the guy next door will do something", he takes action. He doesn't pass the buck. Passing the buck is one of the ways you end up with drug infested slums... but that is for another discussion.

Which wire?

But many rental contracts you can sublet :thumbsup

yes, and to extend the same logic,
winning popularity contest on GFY, as I believe Slick has done, doesn't prevent one from the legal actions in real life and the outcome of those actions might be 180 degrees different than the populace of GFY has predicted.

I'm sure the smart ones will learn the lesson for the future and cheap,
while those who won't become the martyrs we'll be remembering in our yearly prayers.

Can anybody post the link on GFY where everybody praise all "fallen heros"?
I'd like to read it.

There have been people who've lost their homes due to the liens being more than the house is worth. That's pretty much "removal of property" to me.

No, they can't... But they can sue to enforce regulations. Meanwhile, unless an injunction is obtained, the curtains stays up.

I'll have to take your word for it, I've never lived in a house with a neighborhood association agreement, I've only heard of that for townhouses and condos in Canada.

Slicks real world practical experience will indeed be much different then his GFY fame.

Again, liens are obtained by court orders ( unless you are the actual government for what is about my province ) and can be fought and overturn.
Meanwhile, the person can still live in the premises ....

You do have a hardon for arguing down to the split hairs, I'll give you that.

There have also been cases where the HOA has gone and mowed unslightly grass, repainted a house, etc. and charged the homeowner for doing so. Homeowner won't pay - lien on property.

Right now there's a $50K lien on a guy in my subdivision because he decided to clear cut his back yard.

And BTW, many have rules for what you put on your windows too. I lived in one neighborhood where every window seen from the street had to have a white backing. And yes, they could fine you until you removed it and if you wanted to play hardball, the fine could be more than your house was worth.

A TOS can and has been held up in courts - it's been that way for decades, here in GA.

Sure, they can live there. But what do you do when you go to sell your house that's worth $100K and has $150K worth of liens on it??

So far, HOA liens in GA have been VERY strong. I've seen very few, if any cases, where they've been overturned.

let's look at the positve side:

Hey, this builds charecter.

Brad Shaw lost $25,000 to Dave Purehardcore, brought his apologies to him on all adult boards and...
look at him now
;)

fuck me - i have 6 pages of bitching to read since I last read this thread, can someone summarise if for me please?

wow, you guys are still arguing over the same bullshit opinions.

Peaches your beating a dead horse, look at these replies here.

it is funny to watch though, isn't it

I gave up on the arguing part a while ago, I am just reading now....and boy is it a fun read, a little monotonous, but fun

I have np problem with that . As a past Condo association president, I did put liens on condos ( thru the courts ) ang got it sold by sheriff ( starting price is 25% of evaluation- no reserve ). THe bank contested the liens, because they became suddemly in second position on their loan...

To summarize, all that was done legally in court.

DN should have done that, and supply court papers to Slick :2 cents:

ok, I;'ll try..

you an idiot!

no, it';s you who is an idiot!

this would cover at least 4 pages you mised.

No, I have a hardon against misinformation and mistaken assumptions. Everyone in this has assumed that Directnic was trying to do a 2257 inspection (they were not, from everything I have seen... only trying to enforce the terms agreed to into their registration agreement), and just about everyone thinks they OWN a domain. They own the rights to use a domain, an ongoing agreement, with the contractual rights to reassignment (ie, selling the rights) but they don't actually own the domain.

It might seem like splitting hairs, but it is the difference between a girl talking about getting pregnant and actually having twins.

Well, one thing is for sure: you WERE trading with sites that had CP. You had no 2257 links what so ever and a lot of your thumbs looked like CP.

If you play with fire you've got to be able to handle the heat.

:2 cents:

Man I have to give you credit... you would argue your way out of a paper bag, no matter if you are wrong or right!

lol - right great ok :1orglaugh

i think we all just better wait till slick comes back and tells us what his lawyer has said etc.

This is a huge grey area. and one that will unravel in time.

Wrong, there were links to 2257 statements on every single gallery linked from Slick's sites.

But thanks for your page 11 two cents. :D