Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 11534081)

600 posts later...

Originally Posted by Winetalk (Post 11534066)

oh no, after watching the news and dead russian spies,
I am staying as far from russian politics as I can spit in a wind.

The ONLY serious question I am willing to discuss is...

"Will Slick get CD player for the longest thread of the week"?????

Originally Posted by FunkyDog (Post 11531564)

I can't get into my head how some of you react towards Slick. I don't know Slick and i never met him but i do see his situation. Some of you are making statements like "how do you sleep at night". What's wrong with you people? Can't you get it into your brain that he uses sponsor provided content??? So infact you are saying that those sponsors like Alex & Jason, Fuck You Cash and Braincash use CP and passed that content on to Slick to use on his site(s)? Why are you all waiting in line to smash down a fellow webmaster? I don't get it, i really don't.

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 11534015)

Come on, that was funny, admit it.

Man hug? :D

Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 11533711)

Sorry, but that weary arguement always falls flat. Search engines link to everything without regard for content...

Originally Posted by will76 (Post 11534124)

I don't think there is a more stupid thing that people can do then to use content that looks like CP without having proof in their hands to show otherwise.

Originally Posted by Peaches (Post 11534192)

And CD, I still love you even with the comments on JBM ;)

Originally Posted by FetishTom (Post 11534206)

Which of course makes it perfectly ok then.

Just to recap

Google can and do link to CP - and by CP I mean the really sick, stomach churning stuff - and thats okay as far as hosts, registrars and anyone else is concerned.

Slick used thumbs that look a bit dodgy but no hard evidence either way because the model may be over 18 and just look 14 but lets cut him off at the knees anyway and make ourselves look good

Then cue a stream of pointless threads and posts on GFY and the end result is the possible demise of 1 webmaster and zero effect or help for the numerous kids getting raped for fucking real on the god knows how many sicko sites out there which carry on regardless.

Its a strange fucking world.

Originally Posted by AnotherGrogan (Post 750826)

Hello folks

I'm not in the Adult Website business (though I've often thought about having an adult site)

I'm a user who has been going to reallyeighteen.com (and sites like it) periodically for a few years roughly and I'd like to share my perspective on this.

The problem as I perceive it is that the site doesn't really host the content, the thumbnails are redirects that pass control over to other sites and each time you click them you may end up somewhere else. The links don't always lead to the pictures shown in the thumbnails and once you get to another gallery of similar redirects you just don't know where you are going to end up if you click those links. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Grannies, kiddies, animal sex... nothing to do with the thumbnail images.

Indeed, a few times I've ended up at galleries showing pictures of what are obviously children. I haven't worried that much about it because it was very infrequent and I just closed that particular browser tab if I saw anything like that, realizing it's not really their fault once control has been passed on to another site.

Yesterday, I noticed that there was no dns for reallyeighteen. At the time I thought it was just a temporary glitch, or they were moving or something. I know how to use whois and get the authoritative nameserver and then query that to get the IP. So I did that, and set up a hosts file entry for the site so the virtual hostname would work. It seemed to be business as usual, but I hadn't been there in a few weeks.

Today, when I checked and the problem still wasn't solved I started to suspect that something like this had occurred and started to search for answers. Google has de-listed them from their databases, citing a request from chillingeffects.org. So the only info I found was from a few (questionable) spyware removal sites with instructions for cookie removal (I use Linux so I don't give a shit about Windows malware, and I always delete cookies and browsing data after visiting adult sites so that's no problem either)

A Yahoo search led me to this discussion here and now I understand what's going on. Looking again at the registrar info, I now see it's in "Registrar-hold" status (didn't read the info that closely yesterday)

From my perspective, I'll not be going back to reallyeighteen again, because I simply don't want to be associated with the stigma of "kiddie porn". I like pictures of nice young ladies in the 18-20 age range (I'm not even especially fond of "hard core"), but I'm not exposing myself to some potential overzealous and righteous ISP employee for what I might accidently land on. It really got me thinking about that. Whether charges hold up in court or not, once you've been accused of anything to do with child porn you're finished.

It's unfortunate, and I agree that this should not be the job of a domain registrar. Not only that, how the Hell can they provide ID for the models when it's not even them who has "hired" them? Maybe I'm not fully understanding how all of this works, but it seems to me that perhaps slick networks just has to be more discriminating in their afiliations. Shutting them down is inappropriate. Cripes... drop their domains and let them transfer them or re-register elsewhere if they don't approve of the content. That's where the registrar's responsibility should end. Similar for Web hosts. Drop the customer if you don't approve, but don't fuck with them.

I'm sure I'm not alone in the way I think, so this has probably really hurt them. They'll not be able to use those domain names again... they'll have to start anew. This whole thing sickens me and that domain registrar can burn in Hell. I'll certainly never use or recommend them.

Again, I do not want to encounter child porn, but this is way over the top.

Originally Posted by Jace (Post 11534425)

posted on another board

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 11534251)

I wonder 2 things on that...

1) I wonder how many affiliates out there use that same content and trust that the sponsor's 2257 link on their galleries is enough?

and

2) how many sponsors when asked by an affiliate would pony up copies of the documents you are describing?

I know PussyCash has a link right in the promo content area (within each webmaster's stats interface) beside every picset and gallery that leads to a limited use agreement that you affirm and submit. Upon approval you are granted access to their 2257 docs.


Maybe this case will serve notice to affiliates to be more mindful of this kind of thing, even the ones who promote content depicting older models. (as in older than teens)

Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 11534480)

That's about as real as Gonzo has "Luke Ford" posting News articles on Oprano.

Originally Posted by FetishTom (Post 11534206)

Which of course makes it perfectly ok then.

Just to recap

Google can and do link to CP - and by CP I mean the really sick, stomach churning stuff - and thats okay as far as hosts, registrars and anyone else is concerned.

Slick used thumbs that look a bit dodgy but no hard evidence either way because the model may be over 18 and just look 14 but lets cut him off at the knees anyway and make ourselves look good

Then cue a stream of pointless threads and posts on GFY and the end result is the possible demise of 1 webmaster and zero effect or help for the numerous kids getting raped for fucking real on the god knows how many sicko sites out there which carry on regardless.

Its a strange fucking world.

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 11534251)

I wonder 2 things on that...

1) I wonder how many affiliates out there use that same content and trust that the sponsor's 2257 link on their galleries is enough?

Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 11534597)

Proof: How many people get fucked over on phishing scams every day.

Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 11534288)

Nice try, but you keep skipping the obvious part here:

Slick controls manually each trade he makes. Complete editorial control.

Google indexes billions of page, with no potential for editorial control.

I don't excuse Google, but I don't think there is really much that they can do.. unless of could you would like to pay $1 every time you search over there so they can hire people to review every page on the internet.

Plus, of course, Google doesn't run pages packed with tiny body models nude linking to the CP... but you skipped that little fact too.

Originally Posted by Slick (Post 11532395)

I swear on the lives of myself, wife, and kids that there's no known child porn on my pages and judging by the support from the sponsors behind the content in question, they're ready to send the documentation over to me, so that shows that they are 18.

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11534903)

you are in the middle of a CP scandal and can't stop yourself from drawing attention to the fact that you were never 2257 compliant by any stretch of the imagination.

your imaginary attorney needs to start giving you better imaginary advice.

Originally Posted by pornonada (Post 11534885)

while i agree to some point with you that it's mostly impossible to edit or check all links/sites indexed and spidered at google i think this does not really and automaticly apply to their image search feature.
Someone can easyly place the argument that if they can not control the content/images they just don't have to do it, not? And this would be the same argument used for adult sites, if you don't have the papers, don't list it.
Where is the difference in facts and in front of the law?

And just playing devils advocate and following your logic about the automation at google. So if i set my tradescript to "autoapprove", my tgp script for submission to autolist or maybe even i setup a spider automaticly adding, posting pics it finds on the internet than i'am on the sure side? I know i'am not, just saying that automation principally shouldn't be an excuse at all for violating a bunch of current laws. How i said, don't get me wrong on these please!

Originally Posted by Kimmykim (Post 11533794)

You contacted DirectNIC in regards to someone else's domain names? In regards to this specific incident?

If so, I'd be surprised that they'd even acknowledge such a contact, since you are not the domain holder in question.

If you had specific questions about your own domains that you have registered there, or you were inquiring as to specific policies in regards to domains you would like to transfer to DirectNIC, then that's a different matter.

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 11533840)

One very noted and well-known hosting provider I spoke to yesterday said that according to his company's lawyers, if you are a registered ISP you dont have to get involved untill a court serves you papers. Going purely by the law, the company (in the present case that would of course be Directnic) "has no legal right nor the expertise to play Judge, Jury and excecutioneer in these matters. Its all about the law."

However, he did say that morally and off the record he would probably look into certain matters such as this himself, but not at the risk of opening himself up to being sued.

Hard to make sense of the laws as they exist really. A host/ISP or in this case Registrar are not liable for those they provide service for, BUT what about when they recieve a complaint and choose to do nothing? Then they are or may be knowingly enabling someone to publish illegal content, in which case maybe a court could find them culpable... I don't know.

Tough call either way. On one hand I'm inclined to think it would be better to just pass the complaint on to the webmaster in question and then wait until such time that an actual JUDGE who is qualified to make a judgement orders you to remove or otherwise shut down the offender. On the other hand though, as far as being the guy whose sites they are looking at, I would much rather have to deal with my host or registrar than I would the government, FBI etc.


One thing I know is, Slick is going to have to try to be a lot more detail-oriented in future. Hopefully he can get past this and tighten up his sites and move on once this is all sorted out. He's a long-time webmaster I've known for over 8 years, and is in this for the long haul, I'm sure he'll buck up and make the necessary changes to his network.

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11534839)

the current law requires you to have the docs no matter what.

its not about "trusting" anyone. you are supposed to have the docs in hand the moment you publish the thumbs on your pages.

Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 11533711)

Sorry, but that weary arguement always falls flat. Search engines link to everything without regard for content. Both Yahoo and Google, however, do filter searches in a manner that makes some direct searched for CP not work (the same way a search for just sex or porn on google doesn't always bring you porn or sex sites you expect).

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 11534996)

Yeea I think most here already know that, so why restate the obvious. In my post you quoted I was simply wondering how many affiliates out there are leaving it up to trust that their sponsors have the 2257 thing taken care of... and from what I know of it there are a LOT of them.

Originally Posted by cyberxxx (Post 11535019)

Is there such a notice in the law (say in 2257) which says: "everything should be considered regarding the content. so, search engine is one case, but adult thumbnail picture posting is something different"? Please just show me the mentioned part of the law (not your doubts/assumptions but the LAW) and I won't do such a comparison in future. Thank you!

Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 11534955)

Google, Yahoo, and other similar sites have no intent. They are not trying to sell porn, and they are not intentionally pandering to pedos. I don't know what Slick's intention was (except possibly MORE TRAFFIC!), but his operation certainly differed from Yahoo or Google.

Originally Posted by Thumbler (Post 11534880)

Now that's an interesting question. Here's a question for you - which registrar was recently in the news for allowing the registration of a name that was obviously intended to be used in a phishing scam?

I'll give you a clue - it starts with D

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11535086)

this is an old discussion too. search engines are not liable for the content they index.

Originally Posted by FetishTom (Post 11535099)

And then there is the thread on here earlier inviting us all to drool over a 18 y/o hottie (and yeah she could pass for 16 or younger) and its all 'yeah I'd hit it' etc etc although before they 'hit it' they'll make a stop in here to give Slick a spot of grief...as I said funny old world

Originally Posted by BVF (Post 11535143)

Dotster??????

Originally Posted by cyberxxx (Post 11535148)

A quote from 2257 please.

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11535293)

FACT - its an old discussion. been done to death. they are not liable for the content they index. just as this forum is not liable for images that are posted.

want answers?... start searching. i am not your legal assistant.

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11535060)

we are not talking about some guy in Canada or in the UK.. we are talking about someone right here in the US who has absolutely no defensible position for not having the docs. (turning them over to another party is a different issue)

this should be a heads up for every TGP owner in the US... but like usual, 6 months after the new regs, people can't remember what they are and were never in compliance with them to begin with.