DirectNic - SlicksNetwork Update !!!! - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

Mutt · 12-14-2006, 12:28 AM

i'm not against Slick - and i'm not against what Directnic did either. On Slick's site i'm familiar with almost all the content and while they do look too young they are legal. But he has alot of trades with sites that do have illegal cp content and he has to drop those trades or get lumped in with them.

Mr Pheer · 12-14-2006, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corona

Regardless of how this turns out DirectNic has lost my business forever.

Who are the best registers out there?

i have about 300 registered with dotster

pornonada · 12-14-2006, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPeRMiNaToR

just get the 2257 pages from the sponsor and you're good to go...i think...

exactly, i would do the same. Check which sponsor the first 14 free hosted galleries are from, collect the 2257 links on the sponsor sites and from that point let them investigate whatever they want.

If they don't agree, i personally would riks to the let them shut down my sites and sue them. Having in mind your traffic it would be a for sure a several million law-suit having in mind all the future revenues you would have made. Could turn out even a good deal. Meanwhile build some other pages, in less than 1 year you are on the same level with the only difference that you are a millioner already

pornonada · 12-14-2006, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiveDose

Slick just curious, are you going to keep your domains there? If you don't want to answer I understand...

uhmm, would you keep doing business or living together with someone trying to blackmail and kidnapping you?

pornonada · 12-14-2006, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slick

You know, that's a good question. I guess that it depends on how this turns out in the end. In a way, I guess they mean well, but I'm not sure about the way they're handling this.

I guess on the plus side, once this is over, I should be cleared by them and not have to worry about this again.

You think? I personally doubt it for several reasons, first of all it would mean that if they checked "only" 14 galleries it would automaticlly mean they have to reject all future complaints and not taking any actions, which is in totally dispute on what they declared already. Second, half+ webmaster community is fighting for you that you can move your domains away and staying with them would just be a farce. But ok, your sites and your decission of course. If you are happy how they are doing business, great

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornonada

exactly, i would do the same. Check which sponsor the first 14 free hosted galleries are from, collect the 2257 links on the sponsor sites and from that point let them investigate whatever they want.

If they don't agree, i personally would riks to the let them shut down my sites and sue them. Having in mind your traffic it would be a for sure a several million law-suit having in mind all the future revenues you would have made. Could turn out even a good deal. Meanwhile build some other pages, in less than 1 year you are on the same level with the only difference that you are a millioner already

sponsors and content providers aren't obligated to hand out model releases and copies of ids to webmasters. webmasters however, are obligated (by law) to have id's for those models shown on thier sites. what would the lawsuit be based on? the fact that he was never compliant with the law to begin with... suddenly decides he wants to be compliant and can't get the info he needs? thats not a sponsors problem. the solution at that point is to remove the images and move on to sponsors that provide documentation.

Bladewire · 12-14-2006, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

i'd have more sympathy for Slick if he wasn't trading traffic with so many child pornographers. what do we call people in this biz we trade traffic with? PARTNERS!

almost all decent solo girl teen programs have a strict policy they won't accept traffic from any site with underagers on them - why should teen free site owners be any different?

Good point!

People should know who they're doing business with. Ignorance isn't a defense

pornonada · 12-14-2006, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

Others have pointed out that several other registrars have the same verbiage in their TOS. DirectNic is probably MORE adult friendly by going to the webmaster first instead of turning it over immediately to a government agency.

can you point me to another registrar that requires Model Infos and ID's, one that is checking content in combination with threads that the sites get shut down? I didn't hear about such cases so far but maybe you will enlighten me.
Can't see anything adult friendly in it, honestly. Even not something generally friendly, lol.

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornonada

can you point me to another registrar that requires Model Infos and ID's, one that is checking content in combination with threads that the sites get shut down? I didn't hear about such cases so far but maybe you will enlighten me. Can't see anything adult friendly in it, honestly. Even not something generally friendly, lol.

now "adult friendly" apparently means "supports child porn".

pornonada · 12-14-2006, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

what would the lawsuit be based on? the fact that he was never compliant with the law to begin with... suddenly decides he wants to be compliant and can't get the info he needs? thats not a sponsors problem. the solution at that point is to remove the images and move on to sponsors that provide documentation.

wether he is complaint or not is not the registars work to check, neither to take away his business, neither to penalize him. If something is wrong their are enough authorities that can shut him down, but not the registar. They have NO right to it on their own. EVEN more without any EVIDIENCE, no proof, no law, no nothing.

And it is a sponsors problem by the way, they gave him the free hosted galleries, the are even hosted on the sponsors servers, the model licenses are at the sponsor and he is distributing the galleries/content for the sponsors, so how does it come that the sponsor a sudden has nothing to do with it?

pornonada · 12-14-2006, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

now "adult friendly" apparently means "supports child porn".

you don't have another argument than moving words around and create a sentence that let's nobody of choice to agree?

I'am a believer that there is no doubt that all webmasters here are against child porn, but that doesn't mean you can shot someone only because you believe he is a cp freak. There are authorities who handle such issues.
If there is something wrong, report them to ALL authorities if you want, but who the hell is directnic that they decide about your whole business, future, how you run your business and so on??
I said it before in some posts, i personally would prefer to deal with the authorities and feds in such issues, at least they you are NOT guilty as long as not proofen reverse. That's it. Every Fed from the cyber squad dealing daily with cp would laugh his ass of if he sees that the first galleries are for example lightspeed galleries. Honestly, if the feds would know on my door in that issue i wouldn't be scared not 1 minute, but i'ma scared if a registar on a single complaint, on his own decision and without any legal rights can destory my million dollar business. That's something that scares me and it's someting it can't be that way. If someone is guilty, so it be, sentence him, put him into jail, fine him hard, no problem, but at least let's do this by people who understand their work and are authorized to do so.

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornonada

wether he is complaint or not is not the registars work to check, neither to take away his business, neither to penalize him. If something is wrong their are enough authorities that can shut him down, but not the registar. They have NO right to it on their own. EVEN more without any EVIDIENCE, no proof, no law, no nothing.

assumed you were talking about suing sponsors. my bad ;)

still... he can't sue directnic because he agreed to everything they are doing the moment he registered or transfered the domains with DirectNIC. its in their TOS. that is where their "right" to act like this comes from... its clearly stated in the terms of the contract that they both entered in to.

Quote:

And it is a sponsors problem by the way, they gave him the free hosted galleries, the are even hosted on the sponsors servers, the model licenses are at the sponsor and he is distributing the galleries/content for the sponsors, so how does it come that the sponsor a sudden has nothing to do with it?

it doesn't matter what images or galleries they gave him. it only matters whether or not he has the docs in hand for the pages he manages. the sponsor is not obligated to give him 2257 documents... he was obligated to have them in hand BEFORE using any images.

if you can't get the docs.. you dont use the content. you don't start using the content and then after the fact make an argument that you require the documents. many sponsors have publically stated that they aren't giving anyone documents. many more have explained fully that the privacy laws of their own countries prevent them from doing so (and this includes Canada)

he has already fucked up beyond belief if he has publically stated that he doesn't have the documentation required to be compliant with the law.

Angelslinks · 12-14-2006, 02:47 AM

Good post Pornonada

pornonada · 12-14-2006, 03:04 AM

Quote:

assumed you were talking about suing sponsors. my bad ;)

still... he can't sue directnic because he agreed to everything they are doing the moment he registered or transfered the domains with DirectNIC. its in their TOS. that is where their "right" to act like this comes from... its clearly stated in the terms of the contract that they both entered in to.

look, that's where you are just plain wrong. First of all such agreement can NOT involve 3rd persons like the models. Even if there is a TOS, there is also federal and other laws about privacy. You can't just that easy request the ID's from other people and there are good reasons why it's handled that way. You can NOT force anybody to do illegal things just to be confirm with your TOS. I can write in my TOS whatever i want, in a contract too, but if it's not law confirm it's just not valid. And there is no TOS that gives you the right to involve 3rd persons or data about them. These are things the authorities handle, not registars or self-claimed-content-censors.

Also, nobody answered to this so far, mostly because i'am right about it. DirectNIC is NOT the owner of the domain, ICANN is!!! Icann has Not given any rights to Directnic to terminate, delete, suspend or shut down sites. Therefor after NOT having such rights given by the owner, they just can't do so. You can only do with properties that are not your own the things you have the rights to do. Feel free to read the ICANN agreement with the Registars http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-a...nt-17may01.htm and if i miss something let me know please, but i doubt as it's clearly stated that if domain disputes appear it needs arbitration decissions. (sorry for my bad english, isn't my native language, hope you can understand what i want to say).

So just to fit it together, the DirectNic TOS is just something fitted together their own, without rights, without legal base and how they handle things is just NOT law confirm, even illegal.

auscguy · 12-14-2006, 03:40 AM

Slick

I've just had a look at your site too, some of the girls do look under legal age, and whether they are or arent, maybe thats the main issues....
As webmaster, do we really want to promote sites with girls who are legal but look illegal?
Maybe just my opinion but a girl who is say 14 and a girl who looks 14 but is 18, is there really a difference? Surely the same time of sicko will be wanting to see both girls because they look 18.
Maybe we need to steer clear of promoting sites that are borderline looking and this issue would go away?

What do you all think?

Just my 2 cents.........

darksoul · 12-14-2006, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by auscguy

Slick

I've just had a look at your site too, some of the girls do look under legal age, and whether they are or arent, maybe thats the main issues....
As webmaster, do we really want to promote sites with girls who are legal but look illegal?
Maybe just my opinion but a girl who is say 14 and a girl who looks 14 but is 18, is there really a difference? Surely the same time of sicko will be wanting to see both girls because they look 18.
Maybe we need to steer clear of promoting sites that are borderline looking and this issue would go away?

What do you all think?

Just my 2 cents.........

I personally think he's wrong as well.
But does that mean he's quilty already ?
Whos to judge ?

Doctor Dre · 12-14-2006, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slick

You know, that's a good question. I guess that it depends on how this turns out in the end. In a way, I guess they mean well, but I'm not sure about the way they're handling this.

I guess on the plus side, once this is over, I should be cleared by them and not have to worry about this again.

Jesus... are you dumb ? Just move them away from there ASAP. There is no way in hell they'd keep my business after having made a such move.

I'm actually gonna transfer the mainstream domains I have on there to another registar.

Doctor Dre · 12-14-2006, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneprone

What if one of the galleries is of say Paris Hilton??

How would you get an ID for her???

It would be impossible..

I mean we all know she is over 21, but how would you get an id to prove it??

Furthermore we all know the models in question are over 18 coming from sponsors like nscash, etc, but he's required to prove it.

What if he cant get one of the ID''s?? Then what??

The dude from ponopushers posted above a comment like " whould you give your shit up" refering to he wouldnt give someone like slick ids..

which would leave him fucked..

Time for me to do some house cleaning.. Promoting sponsors only who I know will give me id's in a time of need..

And staying away from registerfly lol

At first I thought this could have been an error, but it seems it isn't.

pradaboy · 12-14-2006, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corona

Regardless of how this turns out DirectNic has lost my business forever.

Who are the best registers out there?

MONIKER.COM

bl4h · 12-14-2006, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Dre

Jesus... are you dumb ? Just move them away from there ASAP. There is no way in hell they'd keep my business after having made a such move.

I'm actually gonna transfer the mainstream domains I have on there to another registar.

cause he knows what hes up to and is lucky to have been running this long.

He links to known cp publishers, lets not even worry about the fact that some of the images on the tgp are a bit iffy.

"Furthermore we all know the models in question are over 18 coming from sponsors like nscash, etc, but he's required to prove it."

nah

"Some of the aforementioned depictions appearing or otherwise contained in or at these sites contain only visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, and, as such, are exempt from the requirements set forth in 18 U.S.C. 2257 and C.F.R. 75."

This is acceptable, but that doesnt mean theyre over 18

Anyway, do you think theyd question you about paris hilton? This isnt paris hiltons we're talking about. I mean i care about free speech, and dont give a crap about dirtecttnic either way, but i think the real issue is the dudes sites and not the directnic drama

OldJeff · 12-14-2006, 05:25 AM

It is simply amazing how little people know about 2257 and what can and can not be legally done.

I looked at the site in question. If the owner has every ID, there are still enough violations of 2257 on that site to put the owner away for at least 50 years.

darksoul · 12-14-2006, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldJeff

It is simply amazing how little people know about 2257 and what can and can not be legally done.

I looked at the site in question. If the owner has every ID, there are still enough violations of 2257 on that site to put the owner away for at least 50 years.

Thats very possible. But where does Directnic comes into play here ?

Bossman · 12-14-2006, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Looks to me like DN probably got a call from someone. From the 3rd link on the first row of majorpervert:

Translation:
According to Section 235 of the Danish Criminal Code it is a criminal offence to disseminate, possess or for a payment to become acquainted with child pornography. The maximum penalty can in certain cases be imprisonment for up to 6 years.

The National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police, who assist in investigations into crime on the internet, has informed Cybercity, that the internet page which your browser has tried to get in contact with may contain material which could be regarded as child pornography.

Upon the request of The National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police Cybercity has blocked the access to the internet page. If you have any objections against the internet page being blocked, please contact Cybercity.

Information on criminal conduct on the internet may be passed on to the National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police.

I checked out that site (majorpervert)... The first thumbs surely looks like CP, and if he is/was also trading with known CP sites, then it makes sense why someone would ask about the age of the models.

In most countries around the world, then you must report if you see crimes against children, if Directnic saw those thumbs and gave majorpervert a chance to provide model IDS, then I say he is lucky... it could just aswell had been someone else who had just contacted the FBI

darksoul · 12-14-2006, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossman

I checked out that site (majorpervert)... The first thumbs surely looks like CP, and if he is/was also trading with known CP sites, then it makes sense why someone would ask about the age of the models.

In most countries around the world, then you must report if you see crimes against children, if Directnic saw those thumbs and gave majorpervert a chance to provide model IDS, then I say he is lucky... it could just aswell had been someone else who had just contacted the FBI

This is not whats its all about, sure there are questionable thumbs on some of his domains.
But then why ALL his domains were locked like he was considered quilty already ?
And why does directnic conducts an investigation that proves nothing.
And if they were really investigating cp wouldn't they require ids for ALL his thumbs ? I'm sure not only 14 of them are questionable.

Manowar · 12-14-2006, 05:37 AM

i missed this drama

Carrie · 12-14-2006, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pradaboy

MONIKER.COM

Ahem... you might want to go back and re-read their Terms of Service.
Specifically items 28 and 29.
They can lock and seize your domains registered with them for any reason they feel like, and keep them locked during any investigations they or the authorities enter into.

As I keep repeating, I haven't seen a registrar yet who doesn't have this type of clause in their TOS.

bl4h · 12-14-2006, 05:42 AM

yeah heres directnic

CONTENT OBTAINED WITHOUT RELIABLE CONSENT.

You agree that if we determine that your use of our Services or System is in any way connected or affiliated with the display, promotion, or dissemination of content obtained without reliable consent from each participant-e.g., sexual or nude images involving children under the age of 18, bestiality, murder, rape-we may charge your account a penalty in the amount of US $1,000.00 for every domain name in violation of this section. You further agree that we may collect these penalties by any means we deem necessary, including but not limited to charging any credit card you have on file with us or auctioning your domains.

You agree that we reserve the right to immediately discontinue your use of our Services or System and seize control of your account(s) and all domain names within your account(s) immediately and without notice to you upon a determination that you have violated this section. You further agree that if you fail to pay us any penalties assessed under this section, we may auction off any and all of the domain names within your account(s) to satisfy your debt to us.

You agree that we may take all necessary steps to investigate, document, and report any findings that you have violated this section, including but not limited to disclosing your account information to any and all appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Carrie · 12-14-2006, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bizman2960

DirectNic's lawyers sounds like pussies.

Says the man who posts in a CP-related thread with a sig banner featuring girls in pigtails saying "naughty young girls get fucked after school".

darksoul · 12-14-2006, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

Ahem... you might want to go back and re-read their Terms of Service.
Specifically items 28 and 29.
They can lock and seize your domains registered with them for any reason they feel like, and keep them locked during any investigations they or the authorities enter into.

As I keep repeating, I haven't seen a registrar yet who doesn't have this type of clause in their TOS.

You've been spewing this TOS bullshit over all threads now. Got anything else to add ?
If the TOS said they could fuck you in the ass any time they want, means they can actually do it ?

jimthefiend · 12-14-2006, 05:53 AM

Carrie is a fucking idiot. Ignore her.

bl4h · 12-14-2006, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksoul

You've been spewing this TOS bullshit over all threads now. Got anything else to add ?
If the TOS said they could fuck you in the ass any time they want, means they can actually do it ?

yes

If you sign up and get fucked in the ass thats your problem.

IMHO this holding of the domain for CHILD P is acceptable

darksoul · 12-14-2006, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bl4h

yes
If you sign up and get fucked in the ass thats your problem.

The correct answer is "no", a TOS can only go so far.

Quote:

IMHO this holding of the domain for CHILD P is acceptable

Correct. But do we have a CP case here ? No. No fucking proof
after all thats why they're doing the investigation.
So can't you see he's been already proclaimed guilty ?

selena · 12-14-2006, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

I find very questionable that a " somebody " reported possible CP to DirectNic...
Much more plausible would be a competitor that did that ... I know of nobody in my family that even know that registrars exists...

You would think that a surfer, were they going to complain, would be complaining to the hosting company, not the registrar.

Carrie · 12-14-2006, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nookster

Well, maybe you should look into the laws. You are not obligated to give ANYONE access to the documents unless they are acting in behalf of the DOJ and/or the FBI.
It seems that DirectNIC's TOS VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW!
They have no fucking jurisdiction. Now STFU.

Okay dipshit - I'll explain this in small words since evidently you need that.

Quote:

The legal department has been requested to review your domain site for possible illegal content. We require a current state issued photo id or passport for the models represented on the followings site that clearly shows their face and their date of birth. We request that this information be submitted to our offices by 4:00pm central time, Monday, December 18, 2006, or we will be forced to close this site down and report it to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

1. They did not ask to see the 2257 documentation that only the DOJ or FBI has permission to ask for. Therefore no federal law has been violated.
2. They have full jurisdiction to ask for proof of a model's age without violating her privacy, since Slick agreed to this when he entered into a contract with them.

Damn, had to use words there with more than two syllables. Oh well, I tried... bringing intelligence to the unenlightened isn't easy.
Now then...

Carrie · 12-14-2006, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksoul

You've been spewing this TOS bullshit over all threads now. Got anything else to add ?
If the TOS said they could fuck you in the ass any time they want, means they can actually do it ?

If you agree to it, yes. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?
Just because you don't *like* a contract doesn't mean it's not valid and won't hold up in court. If you don't like it, don't sign the fucking thing.

Carrie · 12-14-2006, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimthefiend

Carrie is a fucking idiot. Ignore her.

When you cannot refute the facts, ignore someone. That way you can live in unchallenged bliss. You and my 6yo would get along well.

pornonada · 12-14-2006, 06:57 AM

I begin to wonder if you are blonde??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

1. They did not ask to see the 2257 documentation that only the DOJ or FBI has permission to ask for. Therefore no federal law has been violated.

They did NOT ask directly for the 2257 documentation, but asking for:
We require a current state issued photo id or passport for the models represented on the followings site that clearly shows their face and their date of birth.
- so you realy still think a registar can FORCE someone to provide WHATEVER information they want from 3rd persons and this is legal? Amazing. Why don't you see it isn't their work, just read this again which just tells me more than a TOS and i really hope the RED helps you a bit in readint the important things. By the way

Quote:

First Amendment attorney and Free Speech Coalition Chairman Jeffrey Douglas said the ID request is unprecedented, and more importantly, a violation of privacy laws. According to Douglas, the request is illegal, and also could have a chilling effect on the free speech of webmasters that deal in legal teen content.

?This is a blatant and absolute violation of privacy laws,? Douglas told XBIZ. ?There?s absolutely no legal liability for the registrar if underage models appear on a website. DirectNIC is an officious intermeddler.?

Upon receiving a complaint of child pornography, there are legal courses of action for directNIC to take, Douglas said. Since it has no legal right to obtain personally identifiable information from the website?s models, the company should have alerted the proper legal authorities, but instead it decided to take the law into its own hands.

The FBI, the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection (ASACP) and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children operate hotlines for the reporting of child pornography.

and if you continue to read it http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=18587, which is an updated version from yesterday you will see that even DirectNIC didn't say a single word about the Request of ID's and do you know why? Because in differnce to you they mostly realized they CAN NOT do so that easy and as they want!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

2. They have full jurisdiction to ask for proof of a model's age without violating her privacy, since Slick agreed to this when he entered into a contract with them.

Don't you see that neither slick, neither me or you can decide about the privacy about 100's other people? Whatever he agreed, it CAN NOT affect 3rd persons privacy. I bet with you US$ 500 that NEVER EVER you will see an statement or post from someone at DirectNic that they have the LEGAL RIGHT to request whatever personal information about 3rd pesons, do you take the bet?? If yes, call your buddies there and tell them to make a post here and i will send you in lightspeed the US$ 500.

Furthermore i ones more question that the even have the LEGAL RIGHT to delete, suspend or shut down a domain as such LEGAL RIGHT was ot given to them by ICAN

DirectNic requesting now "only" the ID's for the first 14 thumbs already shows me that they put in the "rear gear" because the realized they are acting not like they can and should.

Dennis69 · 12-14-2006, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by auscguy

Slick

I've just had a look at your site too, some of the girls do look under legal age, and whether they are or arent, maybe thats the main issues....
As webmaster, do we really want to promote sites with girls who are legal but look illegal?
Maybe just my opinion but a girl who is say 14 and a girl who looks 14 but is 18, is there really a difference? Surely the same time of sicko will be wanting to see both girls because they look 18.
Maybe we need to steer clear of promoting sites that are borderline looking and this issue would go away?

What do you all think?

Just my 2 cents.........

I agree... sites that are shooting girls that look, or made to look underage are bringing more heat then we handle to adult and they should be avoided!

Corona · 12-14-2006, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by auscguy

Slick

I've just had a look at your site too, some of the girls do look under legal age, and whether they are or arent, maybe thats the main issues....
As webmaster, do we really want to promote sites with girls who are legal but look illegal?

If a person can be prosecuted for looking at pics of a girl who is one day under 18 then by god they can lust after and jerk off to a girl who is one day over 18 all they want no matter how young they look.

And if my wife reads this, I am only taking the devil's advocate positon here. There is no way I would want to see tight firm bodies who are a third your age and have snatches that taste like cotton candy.

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corona

If a person can be prosecuted for looking at pics of a girl who is one day under 18 then by god they can lust after and jerk off to a girl who is one day over 18 all they want no matter how young they look.

And if my wife reads this, I am only taking the devil's advocate positon here. There is no way I would want to see tight firm bodies who are a third your age and have snatches that taste like cotton candy.

hahaa

bl4h · 12-14-2006, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corona

If a person can be prosecuted for looking at pics of a girl who is one day under 18 then by god they can lust after and jerk off to a girl who is one day over 18 all they want no matter how young they look.

And if my wife reads this, I am only taking the devil's advocate positon here. There is no way I would want to see tight firm bodies who are a third your age and have snatches that taste like cotton candy.

Theres more to it. A lot of it has to do with the explotation of females who are too naive to make their own wise decisions. To have your young self posted across thy internet where 50 year old men jerk off to you. Many of them dont understand the demons behind it all. and by the time they do theyre already in the hands of creeps

fris · 12-14-2006, 08:20 AM

if i remmber correctly slick only links to fhg's, you would think all the fhg's would have 2257 document links by now.

RawAlex · 12-14-2006, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

i'm not against Slick - and i'm not against what Directnic did either. On Slick's site i'm familiar with almost all the content and while they do look too young they are legal. But he has alot of trades with sites that do have illegal cp content and he has to drop those trades or get lumped in with them.

Slick's real problem isn't Directnic... Slick's real problem is that he is more than willing to trade traffic with sites that are pretty clearly CP, all to make his hit stats run nice (notice his page specifically lists the traffic of each TGP). Considering his sites are about 90% shave (just this side of pure circle jerk) I would suggest that sponsors might want to look at his site, and where their content is being used, pull accounts or ask to be removed, because now it is clear that at least some of his traffic comes from CP sources.

Slick, if you want to find the source of your trouble, find a mirror and look into it for a minute.

It is disgusting all the long winded bullshit about Directnic, and nobody bother to take two seconds to look at WHAT they were trying to protect.

Slick · 12-14-2006, 08:51 AM

Ok, I'm getting a little tired of all of the comments about my sites having underage girls. I ONLY list sponsor hosted galleries and if you look at the galleries, you'll see some of the top thumbs from sponsors like FuckYouCash (Biggy from Melissa Midwest runs it), NS Cash, Lightspeed Cash, Jason & Alex, Ho Dough, Brain Cash, Kinky Dollars, etc... I see nothing wrong with trusting any of those sponsors for having content. ALL OF THE GIRLS ARE 18, SO WHAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM ?!?!?! It doesn't matter what kind of crop a picture is, as long as the girl is truly 18, there's nothing illegal about it.

As far as the sites that I trade with, every day, I get heaps of new trades that I have to go through, look over, check where they're sending traffic, etc. Maybe you might think I'm stupid if I don't recognize a Russian network of illegal sites. Where would one even come to know of shit like that. I Google questionable sites to see if it's pulled up on some boards or I'll head over to AskDamage or AWI to check, but if there's nothing listed there, what do I do, activate the trade. If anyone has any better ideas, feel free to let me know.

Also, if anyone wants to point out a list of sites that they claim are illegal that I trade with, please hit me up either email or ICQ and I'll definately look into it.

I've been a webmaster for many years and I believe that I've gotten to where I am by being nice to everyone and trading with anyone, no matter how new or how big the site. People in this business remember who's good to them and who are asses. I myself don't want to be considered an ass. You don't know how many times people have thanked me for trading with them when they say that other big guys wouldn't give them the time of day for a trade or when I thank them for a trade and they say "I should be thanking you". It's a good feeling.

Maybe that's my downfall because I'm accept trades too easily, but I know that I do help a lot of people and they return the favor by showing their respect and support me.

RawAlex · 12-14-2006, 08:59 AM

Slick, use your own eyes and your own sense of right and wrong. I hit your trades, and I got toolbar installs, trojans, images of underage girls, and tons of other junk.

Don't let other sites tell you right or wrong... click around for a while and see what you get. The people who you trade with set off more alarms on my Norton that I have ever seen... I got about 10 norton warnings within about 2 minutes. it was disgusting... and many of these sites are using real CP as their lure.

You mean you never noticed this? Wow.

V_RocKs · 12-14-2006, 09:33 AM

I surfed your trades and got no installs, popups, etc...

But your trades, trades are full of them... But I would not expect you to police the Internet...

jonesy · 12-14-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sicone

Direct NIC has no legal grounds to stand on and will lose big time if they decide to pursue this further.

maybe before entering into a contract people should read the TOS?

next.

Why · 12-14-2006, 10:50 AM

fucked up shitty situation.

nation-x · 12-14-2006, 10:55 AM

Since there hasn't actually been a ruling as far as secondary producers go then really any discussion about criminal prosecution is moot. And I know for a fact that being a member or not being a member of FSC makes no difference because in the US we all share equal protection under the law. They can't choose to convict a non-member when they have chosen not to prosecute a member (based on membership) no matter what.

I have confidence that COPA will be amended to exclude the secondary producer from 2257 responsibility because it places un unreasonable burden on the secondary producer and violates the models right to privacy.

I think that COPA will say that no matter how old the model is... that if you present the model as preteen or underage that you will be responsible... much like the dope dealer that sells soap or coffee creamer can still be charged with selling dope because there is intent to commit a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

I like Slick and respect him as a webmaster... but I do have to agree that some of the thumbs on his sites are just not acceptable as good taste in my opinion.

Here are some examples I picked out.
http://206.161.206.211/majorpervert/th93229.jpg
http://206.161.206.211/majorpervert/th283876.jpg
http://206.161.206.211/majorpervert/th226671.jpg

I'm not trying to demonize you Slick. But honestly I think that their is a reason why these thumbs are at the top of the pile... It's because you get alot of traffic from sick perverts looking for underage girls. Your not the only one... http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/sh...ad.php?t=84846 <-- this is a thread about it from almost 2 years ago.

My recommendation is that you recrop those thumbs. (I know they are probably autocasted via TManager). I know you probably didn't hand crop any of those thumbs but you have to agree that they look like 13-14 yr olds.

Anthony · 12-14-2006, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sicone

Hey peahces... my neighbor, who works at taco bell and not the DOJ or any other government body, is requesting to see the ID of a girl in your program. I called a lawyer, he said I should contact you, get the ID's and comply with the requests.

Clearly this lawyer has my best interest in mind.

Will you please fax me over a current ID, phone number and any other contact info for that model so I can hand them over to my neighbor who again does not work for the DOJ.

While I understand your posts, please dont think that all of us are clueless as to how the law works. I do hope for slicks case that this lawyer that is helping him is experienced with the specific laws aimed at the adult business. And personally, I dont think is knows much at all about adult, otherwise he would have never advised him to start gathering the ID's.

This made absolutely no sense.

12-14-2006, 12:28 AM	#151
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	i'm not against Slick - and i'm not against what Directnic did either. On Slick's site i'm familiar with almost all the content and while they do look too young they are legal. But he has alot of trades with sites that do have illegal cp content and he has to drop those trades or get lumped in with them. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

12-14-2006, 05:25 AM	#171
OldJeff Big Fucking hahahaha Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 2,067	It is simply amazing how little people know about 2257 and what can and can not be legally done. I looked at the site in question. If the owner has every ID, there are still enough violations of 2257 on that site to put the owner away for at least 50 years. __________________ "As pornographers we must act responsibly! ;))"- Nickatilynx I might be Old and Tired, but at least I don't support a whiney cunt

12-14-2006, 08:20 AM	#192
fris Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 55,372	if i remmber correctly slick only links to fhg's, you would think all the fhg's would have 2257 document links by now. __________________ Since 1999: 69 Adult Industry awards for Best Hosting Company and professional excellence. WP Stuff

12-14-2006, 02:47 AM	#163
Angelslinks Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 90	Good post Pornonada

12-14-2006, 03:40 AM	#165
auscguy Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: downunder Posts: 111	Slick I've just had a look at your site too, some of the girls do look under legal age, and whether they are or arent, maybe thats the main issues.... As webmaster, do we really want to promote sites with girls who are legal but look illegal? Maybe just my opinion but a girl who is say 14 and a girl who looks 14 but is 18, is there really a difference? Surely the same time of sicko will be wanting to see both girls because they look 18. Maybe we need to steer clear of promoting sites that are borderline looking and this issue would go away? What do you all think? Just my 2 cents.........

12-14-2006, 05:37 AM	#175
Manowar jellyfish Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 71,528	i missed this drama

12-14-2006, 05:42 AM	#177
bl4h Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 1,282	yeah heres directnic CONTENT OBTAINED WITHOUT RELIABLE CONSENT. You agree that if we determine that your use of our Services or System is in any way connected or affiliated with the display, promotion, or dissemination of content obtained without reliable consent from each participant-e.g., sexual or nude images involving children under the age of 18, bestiality, murder, rape-we may charge your account a penalty in the amount of US $1,000.00 for every domain name in violation of this section. You further agree that we may collect these penalties by any means we deem necessary, including but not limited to charging any credit card you have on file with us or auctioning your domains. You agree that we reserve the right to immediately discontinue your use of our Services or System and seize control of your account(s) and all domain names within your account(s) immediately and without notice to you upon a determination that you have violated this section. You further agree that if you fail to pay us any penalties assessed under this section, we may auction off any and all of the domain names within your account(s) to satisfy your debt to us. You agree that we may take all necessary steps to investigate, document, and report any findings that you have violated this section, including but not limited to disclosing your account information to any and all appropriate law enforcement agencies.

12-14-2006, 05:53 AM	#180
jimthefiend So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: icq: 121189 Posts: 18,889	Carrie is a fucking idiot. Ignore her.

12-14-2006, 08:51 AM	#194
Slick Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Houghton, MI Posts: 7,338	Ok, I'm getting a little tired of all of the comments about my sites having underage girls. I ONLY list sponsor hosted galleries and if you look at the galleries, you'll see some of the top thumbs from sponsors like FuckYouCash (Biggy from Melissa Midwest runs it), NS Cash, Lightspeed Cash, Jason & Alex, Ho Dough, Brain Cash, Kinky Dollars, etc... I see nothing wrong with trusting any of those sponsors for having content. ALL OF THE GIRLS ARE 18, SO WHAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM ?!?!?! It doesn't matter what kind of crop a picture is, as long as the girl is truly 18, there's nothing illegal about it. As far as the sites that I trade with, every day, I get heaps of new trades that I have to go through, look over, check where they're sending traffic, etc. Maybe you might think I'm stupid if I don't recognize a Russian network of illegal sites. Where would one even come to know of shit like that. I Google questionable sites to see if it's pulled up on some boards or I'll head over to AskDamage or AWI to check, but if there's nothing listed there, what do I do, activate the trade. If anyone has any better ideas, feel free to let me know. Also, if anyone wants to point out a list of sites that they claim are illegal that I trade with, please hit me up either email or ICQ and I'll definately look into it. I've been a webmaster for many years and I believe that I've gotten to where I am by being nice to everyone and trading with anyone, no matter how new or how big the site. People in this business remember who's good to them and who are asses. I myself don't want to be considered an ass. You don't know how many times people have thanked me for trading with them when they say that other big guys wouldn't give them the time of day for a trade or when I thank them for a trade and they say "I should be thanking you". It's a good feeling. Maybe that's my downfall because I'm accept trades too easily, but I know that I do help a lot of people and they return the favor by showing their respect and support me.

12-14-2006, 08:59 AM	#195
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Slick, use your own eyes and your own sense of right and wrong. I hit your trades, and I got toolbar installs, trojans, images of underage girls, and tons of other junk. Don't let other sites tell you right or wrong... click around for a while and see what you get. The people who you trade with set off more alarms on my Norton that I have ever seen... I got about 10 norton warnings within about 2 minutes. it was disgusting... and many of these sites are using real CP as their lure. You mean you never noticed this? Wow.

12-14-2006, 09:33 AM	#196
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,409	I surfed your trades and got no installs, popups, etc... But your trades, trades are full of them... But I would not expect you to police the Internet...

12-14-2006, 10:50 AM	#198
Why MFBA Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: PNW Posts: 7,230	fucked up shitty situation.

12-14-2006, 10:55 AM	#199
nation-x Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Rock Hill, SC Posts: 5,370	Since there hasn't actually been a ruling as far as secondary producers go then really any discussion about criminal prosecution is moot. And I know for a fact that being a member or not being a member of FSC makes no difference because in the US we all share equal protection under the law. They can't choose to convict a non-member when they have chosen not to prosecute a member (based on membership) no matter what. I have confidence that COPA will be amended to exclude the secondary producer from 2257 responsibility because it places un unreasonable burden on the secondary producer and violates the models right to privacy. I think that COPA will say that no matter how old the model is... that if you present the model as preteen or underage that you will be responsible... much like the dope dealer that sells soap or coffee creamer can still be charged with selling dope because there is intent to commit a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea I like Slick and respect him as a webmaster... but I do have to agree that some of the thumbs on his sites are just not acceptable as good taste in my opinion. Here are some examples I picked out. http://206.161.206.211/majorpervert/th93229.jpg http://206.161.206.211/majorpervert/th283876.jpg http://206.161.206.211/majorpervert/th226671.jpg I'm not trying to demonize you Slick. But honestly I think that their is a reason why these thumbs are at the top of the pile... It's because you get alot of traffic from sick perverts looking for underage girls. Your not the only one... http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/sh...ad.php?t=84846 <-- this is a thread about it from almost 2 years ago. My recommendation is that you recrop those thumbs. (I know they are probably autocasted via TManager). I know you probably didn't hand crop any of those thumbs but you have to agree that they look like 13-14 yr olds.