DirectNic Demands SlicksNetwork.com Hand Over Model IDs

[lukeford]

In a move that could indicate further scrutiny by domain registrars, DirectNic has demanded that TGP operator SlickNetwork.com hand over model IDs on all performers it suspects are underage.

More...

[softball]

Now this should be interesting. Curiouser and curiouser.

[gonzo]

Could there be a lot more driving behind this than anyone is aware of?

Directnic stepped up in my book as far as ethics go.

Businesswise... Im not sure if they didnt open a can of worms or not.

[Hell Puppy]

Yeah, this one is a bit of an odd move on the surface. I hate scammers, kiddie porn and whatever other trash they might be seeing on those sites. And I can appreciate the integrity of opting not to business with them.

But a bit of a risky move. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a registrar appointing themselves to be the internet police.

[Jace]

I am on the fence with this now, while I can see the side that they are covering their asses, I don't like the fact that the email said "do this by monday or we shut your sites down"

regardless, there should be industry standard protocols in place for situations like this that all hosts/billers/registrars comply with when a issue arises

as it stands right now, like most of what we do, it is every man for himself

[softball]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Could there be a lot more driving behind this than anyone is aware of?

Directnic stepped up in my book as far as ethics go.

Businesswise... Im not sure if they didnt open a can of worms or not.

Ethics? I think not. This sucks. No trial. Just their decision as to what is illegal or not. Locking the account so they can't move on really is pretentious. Judge and jury. This is redneck justice....a lynch mob.
Isn't this the company that was accused of stealing "who is" inquiries? Come on folks. Don't you think there is an ulterior motive here?
http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showt...ight=directnic

[Jace]

and so it begins

even though Mike AI said he would extend the time in which Slick had to gather the ID's, his sites are all shut down now

http://www.reallyeighteen.com/
http://www.amateurcurves.com/

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by Jace

and so it begins

even though Mike AI said he would extend the time in which Slick had to gather the ID's, his sites are all shut down now

http://www.reallyeighteen.com/
http://www.amateurcurves.com/

1. I didn't see Michael saying they extended the time, Slick said a letter from DirectNic's lawyer said they extended the time
2. I strongly suspect something else is up. DirectNic is loaded with attorneys. They aren't going to do something to put themselves in a bad legal situation.

[Jace]

Originally Posted by Peaches

1. I didn't see Michael saying they extended the time, Slick said a letter from DirectNic's lawyer said they extended the time
2. I strongly suspect something else is up. DirectNic is loaded with attorneys. They aren't going to do something to put themselves in a bad legal situation.

Originally Posted by Slick

Well, my attorney got an email reply from DirectNic. They want me to confirm the models ages of the first 14 thumbs on Major Pervert. If I can do that, they say they'll let this go.

Originally Posted by Slick

They did also extend the deadline, although they didn't state until when, so they are willing to work with me and making it easier on my by requesting for 14 thumbs rather than every one, so they re being more reasonable and willing to get this solved, I do appreciate that.

I really don't think he would lie about that

I don't think anything else is up at all, I think there is a serious lack of communication between mike and his employees and they basically just ruined someones day

i will agree with most though and say the content on those tgp's was WAY questionable, still I don't think it should be in the hands of the registrar to shut the sites down while the site owner is trying to resolve things with you

[Jace]

Originally Posted by Peaches

DirectNic is loaded with attorneys.

Originally Posted by Slick

I just called up DirectNic support and they said I was shut down due to illegal content. I asked for a phone number for the legal department, but they said they didn't have one.

um.......ok?

[Elli]

Highly interesting. If a company acts like it bears responsibility for the content, then it makes them legally liable, yes? Regardless of previously stated laws?

So they're going to start policing all their accounts, I'm assuming. Is this them taking the high road of "self regulation" or is there more behind it?

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Elli

Highly interesting. If a company acts like it bears responsibility for the content, then it makes them legally liable, yes? Regardless of previously stated laws?

So they're going to start policing all their accounts, I'm assuming. Is this them taking the high road of "self regulation" or is there more behind it?

Beats me. But can you tell me if Lars has been freed from the clutches of that evil Zango company?

[Jace]

I guess I am going to bow out of the debate for now until Mike posts something or let's someone know something

there is obviously more to this than is being said

[softball]

I still think that any registrar that feels uncomfortable with a domain it has registered can a: report it to the proper authorities and b: let the "offender" move on to another registrar. This flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty".

America is becoming one great paranoid witch hunt of late. You gotta watch what you write. You gotta watch what you say. Or someone might turn you in. It feels like the Soviet Union.
Can you say McCarthy kids?

[softball]

Originally Posted by Jace

I guess I am going to bow out of the debate for now until Mike posts something or let's someone know something

there is obviously more to this than is being said

I truly hope there is because on the surface, it is a book burning.

[softball]

OK, here is a possible scenario. A Canadian registers his domain with Directnic. Directnic decides he is posting dodgy stuff so demands id's or Directnic will lock up his domain and virtually shut him down.
Here is the cunundrum.
The Canadian government says that is illegal and the Canadian citizen could be prosecuted for doing what Directnic demands.
What is this "innocent" person supposed to do in this case? Roll over and provide the id and possibly go to jail? Or get shut down because someone at Directnic has decided that it is illegal content.
This is a pandora's box of ethical issues.

[gonzo]

I still want to know which sponsors have that questionable teen content.

For directnic to get lawyered up about it makes me wonder.

[Hammer]

Jace, why are you saying they're just covering their asses? They are merely the registrant of the name, they have absolutely no legal responsibility in what the domain is used for.

This is total horseshit and it's illegal. I knew MikeAI was a Republican, but I sure didn't expect him to go from being a pornographer to a fucking zealot.

Just like reformed smokers. They like it just fine while they're doing it, but preach against it with a fervor when they quit.

This is the same as the bullshit with Crissy Moran. She went from being a porn whore to a zealot overnight.

p.s. Why the hell does anyone pay DirectNic $15 a year when they can use GoDaddy and pay $8?

[Peaches]

I can 100% guarantee you Michael knew absolutely nothing about this until Slick made his post on GFY and someone contacted Michael. He's an owner - he's not involved in the day to day activities of the biz.

Yes, Jace, they have a legal team. It's pretty standard to tell someone basically cold calling to contact their legal team by email. IBM would probably tell you the same thing. Intercosmos is huge. DirectNic isn't the only thing they do and even moreso, I doubt the adult domains are their biggest business.

This is PURELY speculation on my end, but I can easily see someone contacting the government agencies months and months ago about these sites - this didn't just happen overnight. I haven't seen the sites (I don't even click on that shit) but even those on Slick's side and against DN said they very much looked like CP.

If DN cut him off w/o reason, he has a good lawsuit. First he needs to find a good lawyer. It seems whomever he has now isn't doing him much good.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Peaches

If DN cut him off w/o reason, he has a good lawsuit. First he needs to find a good lawyer. It seems whomever he has now isn't doing him much good.

I think hes being advised by the same people that are advising Lars.

[softball]

"This is total horseshit and it's illegal. I knew MikeAI was a Republican, but I sure didn't expect him to go from being a pornographer to a fucking zealot."

Yeah its the Joe Kennedy school of business.

[sudden]

Originally Posted by gonzo

I think hes being advised by the same people that are advising Lars.

You sure know how to beat a dead horse. Bitching about the same fucking thing .. and I dont just mean this, but every.. fucking.. thing.. over.. and.. over.. again..

It's like you like dragging shit thru mud not just once or twice, but until the river of mud has been entirely absorbed by whatever you're dragging.

And I'm not arguing about if what Lars did is good or bad, merely the fact that the majority of your posts contain bitching in the same fashion about a subject that changes about once every two to four weeks.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by sudden

You sure know how to beat a dead horse. Bitching about the same fucking thing .. and I dont just mean this, but every.. fucking.. thing.. over.. and.. over.. again..

It's like you like dragging shit thru mud not just once or twice, but until the river of mud has been entirely absorbed by whatever you're dragging.

And I'm not arguing about if what Lars did is good or bad, merely the fact that the majority of your posts contain bitching in the same fashion about a subject that changes about once every two to four weeks.

Ok lets talk about the business model of using a bogus virus scan that tells you that your machine is infected and even pops out the CD tray to encourage the surfer to get the "cure" which is nothing more than a trojan for adware.

[softball]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Ok lets talk about the business model of using a bogus virus scan that tells you that your machine is infected and even pops out the CD tray to encourage the surfer to get the "cure" which is nothing more than a trojan for adware.

I'm with Gonzo on this. But not on the kid gloves attitude to Directnic which I think....and do most of the boards I have read today....that it is outrageous.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I'm with Gonzo on this. But not on the kid gloves attitude to Directnic which I think....and do most of the boards I have read today....that it is outrageous.

I dont think he will want to talk about it.

[softball]

Originally Posted by gonzo

I dont think he will want to talk about it.

Oh I am sure. But unless you know something that most don't, then something is really off the rails here. Putting someone out of business on a whim (or so it seems since there has been no directnic response) is just outrageous. That is, unless you are trying to go for another market...ie straight mainstream market, and are trying to position your company as a porn buster. Like I said, Joe Kennedy.

[tony404]

Internet policing ? its called a industry regulating itself or the government starts regulating for you. Imagine if everyone policed cp on line instead of waiting for the police. If you got proof everyone is of age ,you really got nothing to worry about.There would be no safe place for cp to happen in the internet world. oh I forgot in the online world its everyone's god given right to do whatever the fuck they want until they are arrested.
Then they cry why do they pick on us. lol

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Oh I am sure. But unless you know something that most don't, then something is really off the rails here. Putting someone out of business on a whim (or so it seems since there has been no directnic response) is just outrageous. That is, unless you are trying to go for another market...ie straight mainstream market, and are trying to position your company as a porn buster. Like I said, Joe Kennedy.

Ive seen the same thing as everyone else has concerning directnic.

Ill wait and see how this develops.

[softball]

Originally Posted by tony404

Internet policing ? its called a industry regulating itself or the government starts regulating for you. Imagine if everyone policed cp on line instead of waiting for the police. If you got proof everyone is of age ,you really got nothing to worry about.There would be no safe place for cp to happen in the internet world. oh I forgot in the online world its everyone's god given right to do whatever the fuck they want until they are arrested.
Then they cry why do they pick on us. lol

Not everyone is legally able to give out that information unless it is to the proper legal authorities. So what do you do then

[Hammer]

It's not DN's job to 'police' anything and since when is DirectNic part of this industry that you think should be policing itself? This isn't a case of policing ourselves, this is a case of an outside source policing us and doing it illegally.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Hammer

It's not DN's job to 'police' anything and since when is DirectNic part of this industry that you think should be policing itself? This isn't a case of policing ourselves, this is a case of an outside source policing us and doing it illegally.

Hammer, I propose to you the same bet I proposed with rhetorical http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showthread.php?t=51383

[Hammer]

It blows my mind when I see people supporting what DN is doing considering the industry we're in. We are constantly fighting for our constitutrional rights in this business and along comes an organization that tramples all over them and instead of getting pissed off, some of you are actually condoning their actions. Unbelievable.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Hammer, I propose to you the same bet I proposed with rhetorical http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showthread.php?t=51383

It'll be a shame to see you go.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hammer

It blows my mind when I see people supporting what DN is doing considering the industry we're in. We are constantly fighting for our constitutrional rights in this business and along comes an organization that tramples all over them and instead of getting pissed off, some of you are actually condoning their actions. Unbelievable.

I have seen some, but very little support out there. But when shit like this happens there are always a few. I would assume that after this Directnic will be out of the adult reg business by the sound of it. But that could be the plan.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Hammer

It'll be a shame to see you go.

I take it that that is an aceptance

Originally Posted by Hammer

We are constantly fighting for our constitutrional rights in this business and along comes an organization that tramples all over them

Last I checked, your constitutional rights end right at my doorstep.

[softball]

Last I checked, your constitutional rights end right at my doorstep.

Not being a constitutional expert, I would guess you are very wrong on that count. You might think about checking again.

[Hammer]

I take it that that is an aceptance

Sure, why not. Oprano won't miss either of us.

Last I checked, your constitutional rights end right at my doorstep.

huh? I'm guessing you mean if I come into your house you have the right to do illegal things to me because I no longer have any rights? So you could rape me and it would be okay. Or you could rob me or kill me? Since none of those are true, just what constitutional rights end at your doorstep? You can't even shoot me unless your life is threatened and even then a good attorney could get you convicted of murder.

But, what does any of that have to do with the current argument that what DirectNic did is unconstitutional?

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Sure, why not. Oprano won't miss either of us.

huh? I'm guessing you mean if I come into your house you have the right to do illegal things to me because I no longer have any rights? So you could rape me and it would be okay. Or you could rob me or kill me? Since none of those are true, just what constitutional rights end at your doorstep? You can't even shoot me unless your life is threatened and even then a good attorney could get you convicted of murder.

But, what does any of that have to do with the current argument that what DirectNic did is unconstitutional?

lolol...You are confused. You are listing things that are against the law not things that are your constitutional right.

Let's see now.


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Your right to free speech ends at my doorstep as I can have you arrested for walking into my house and abusing me verbally. Your right to exercise your religion ends at my doorstep, again, you come in and throw down some prayer mats and start praying and if I call the cops, you will be at least escorted from my house if not arrested. Yor right to assemble ends at my doorstep, go ahead get a few people to assemble in my living room uninvited and the cops will again remove you for me.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You bring a weapon into my house and again, the cops will help me out, not you. In fact, in Florida if you bring a weapon into my house I can shoot your ass.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Unless of course I put the condition that you are subject to search and seizure upon entering my doorstep. In fact, if you bring personal articles into my house and I grab them and search them you would have absolutely no legal recourse.


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


You can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself but if you tell me something in confidence and I take it to the authorities, it not only can be used against you but as Joe Friday would say, it WILL be used against you so you have incriminated yourself even though you have the right not to.

(Favorite Ron White line: I had the right to remain silent, unfortunately......I didn't have the ability)

What this has to do with the directnic thing is that they are a private company, they created terms and conditions for a contract with them and those terms and conditions were agreed to. Unless a court of law says that those terms and conditions are not enforceable then those terms and conditions stand. Since no court has made such a detemination then for right now that contract must be considered valid. In fact, the lack of action by Slick and his layer to get an injunction against directnic not allowing them to enforce their contract would indicate to me that his lawyer is thinking that the contract is enforceable.

If the contract were so blatantly unenforceable as everyone is saying, so blatantly unconstitutional as all the gfy lawyers say, it would take about $300 and half a day to get in front of a federal judge to get an injunction prohibiting directnic from taking the actions they did. And yes, it would be federal because slick and directnic are not in the same state and it is therefore related to interstate commerce which is completely the feds purview.

When Slick agreed to directnic's terms and conditions, he set foot inside of their doorstep and as I said, the constitution ends at my doorstep (in this case directnic's doorstep).

This is not free speech case. This is a contract case, pure and simple.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Sure, why not. Oprano won't miss either of us.

Well, I really don't have the dislike for you that I do for rhetorical so how's bout we make it a monetary bet instead. I can go to $100. I'm not rich so I am not willing to gamble $1000 like the bigwigs are...lol... But make it wherever you feel comfortable between $1 and $100 (or a couple of drinks at a show) and I would be just as ageeable.

Either way works for me

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Well, I really don't have the dislike for you that I do for rhetorical so how's bout we make it a monetary bet instead. I can go to $100. I'm not rich so I am not willing to gamble $1000 like the bigwigs are...lol... But make it wherever you feel comfortable between $1 and $100 (or a couple of drinks at a show) and I would be just as ageeable.

Either way works for me

Okay, you can just buy me a couple of drinks at the next show.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Okay, you can just buy me a couple of drinks at the next show.

I will look forward to a few Hammer beers myself

[tony404]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Not everyone is legally able to give out that information unless it is to the proper legal authorities. So what do you do then

to prove age a blacked out picture id with only pic and birthdate showing. Your giving no personal info away.

[softball]

Originally Posted by tony404

to prove age a blacked out picture id with only pic and birthdate showing. Your giving no personal info away.

I would have to consult a lawyer on that, but I would bet that would be illegal as well.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I would have to consult a lawyer on that, but I would bet that would be illegal as well.

Hmmmm. So all the sites that set up profiles of girls with their pic and dob in their profile are breaking the law? Many of them are getting that info from their sponsors, so I guess the sponsors are breaking the law too? I have many model releases from content providers and such and I don't have any that have the model's permission to post that stuff on line. I guess all the gossip sites that have celebrity birthdays and pics on them and sites like imdb that have the date of birth and death and a bio are all in violation of the law as you see it.

Damn, you are such a constitutional genius rhetorical.

[softball]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Hmmmm. So all the sites that set up profiles of girls with their pic and dob in their profile are breaking the law? Many of them are getting that info from their sponsors, so I guess the sponsors are breaking the law too? I have many model releases from content providers and such and I don't have any that have the model's permission to post that stuff on line. I guess all the gossip sites that have celebrity birthdays and pics on them and sites like imdb that have the date of birth and death and a bio are all in violation of the law as you see it.

Damn, you are such a constitutional genius rhetorical.

And like I said, you are ignorant. I live in Canada and yes it is illegal. Now, go do a little research and cut and paste something. Duh, I hate to have to explain things that are patently obvious.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Hmmmm. So all the sites that set up profiles of girls with their pic and dob in their profile are breaking the law? Many of them are getting that info from their sponsors, so I guess the sponsors are breaking the law too? I have many model releases from content providers and such and I don't have any that have the model's permission to post that stuff on line. I guess all the gossip sites that have celebrity birthdays and pics on them and sites like imdb that have the date of birth and death and a bio are all in violation of the law as you see it.

Damn, you are such a constitutional genius rhetorical.

If the girls themselves are silly enough to share their ID, they are within their rights to do so. HOWEVER, if you are in Canada and you collect ID's, you CANNOT LEGALLY DISTRIBUTE THEM IN ANY WAY without permission or a release from the legal ID holder. This applies to content producers as well, not only does their model release have to incorporate a release for the content producer to keep the content on record, but there must be a sepereate part of the release allowing it to be distributed to neccessary parties (for 2257 purposes). Anyone other than a government agent, or someone who has through release been given permission to recieve the ID, or been handed it personally from the legal ID holder, CANNOT LEGALLY request that ID in Canada, and if someone were to provide it, they would be in Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and would be subject to jailtime in excess of 10+ years. If it was going cross-border, the fines/jailtime are even steeper, because it was Cross-border data flow of personal information that brought the laws into effect in the first place.

How do I know? My personal lawyer is one of the forefront experts of PIPA in Canada, and in fact he put together a legal seminar for a few years ago on just this subject and how it affect Canadian adult webmasters/content producers. Many major Canadian-based programs attended and I still have all the information, should you be interested.

Bottom line. If DirectNIC were to request the same information from a Canadian company and hold their domains in lock, said Canadian company would spend more time in jail/pay more fines than if they could somehow be extradited to the US and IF they were guilty, be charged under any kind of 2257 offenses. Canada is NOT the only country that has laws this strict, and I'm quite sure there are correlating US state laws that cover privacy/identify theft issues.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

If the girls themselves are silly enough to share their ID, they are within their rights to do so. HOWEVER, if you are in Canada and you collect ID's, you CANNOT LEGALLY DISTRIBUTE THEM IN ANY WAY without permission or a release from the legal ID holder. This applies to content producers as well, not only does their model release have to incorporate a release for the content producer to keep the content on record, but there must be a sepereate part of the release allowing it to be distributed to neccessary parties (for 2257 purposes). Anyone other than a government agent, or someone who has through release been given permission to recieve the ID, or been handed it personally from the legal ID holder, CANNOT LEGALLY request that ID in Canada, and if someone were to provide it, they would be in Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and would be subject to jailtime in excess of 10+ years. If it was going cross-border, the fines/jailtime are even steeper, because it was Cross-border data flow of personal information that brought the laws into effect in the first place.

How do I know? My personal lawyer is one of the forefront experts of PIPA in Canada, and in fact he put together a legal seminar for a few years ago on just this subject and how it affect Canadian adult webmasters/content producers. Many major Canadian-based programs attended and I still have all the information, should you be interested.

Bottom line. If DirectNIC were to request the same information from a Canadian company and hold their domains in lock, said Canadian company would spend more time in jail/pay more fines than if they could somehow be extradited to the US and IF they were guilty, be charged under any kind of 2257 offenses. Canada is NOT the only country that has laws this strict, and I'm quite sure there are correlating US state laws that cover privacy/identify theft issues.

So, the whois databases aren't allowed to list canadian names and addresses?

[softball]

Originally Posted by sarettah

So, the whois databases aren't allowed to list canadian names and addresses?

That is stretching the argument to the extreme. Not a lot of model's nor employees addresses on who is lists.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

That is stretching the argument to the extreme. Not a lot of model's nor employees addresses on who is lists.

So, the canadian privacy laws only apply to models and employees?

I am trying to understand here great constitutional master.

[softball]

Originally Posted by sarettah

So, the canadian privacy laws only apply to models and employees?

I am trying to understand here great constitutional master.

Try and wrap your head around this, brain of America. Now pay attention....models are employees. Privacy laws apply to anyone who you hire and have a social insurance number for. If this is another garden path gotcha kind of thing, just piss off. Because it is obvious for what the laws are intended. Read what Lady Mischief wrote and if you are having a real problem figuring that out, there is always google. Nice to see you have cleaned up your vocabulary though. That is a step in the right direction.

I am getting weary of having to explain the obvious to you. I am beginning to change my opinion of you from ignorance to stupidity. I certainly hope it isn't actually both.