Well DirectNic Shut Me Down - Page 12 - GoFuckYourself.com

Webby · 12-15-2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

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

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

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

I agree with you that we do not know the complete story and there is plenty group think floating around based on the facts known so far - that's not unusual.

Slick's lawyers will work on his case and as part of that, presumably establish the details of any alleged criminal offenses which may be known by DirectNic - or otherwise. Legal negotiations/strategy is not our biz.

No doubts DirectNic will eventually make a diplomatic statement justifying every action they have taken. That also is normal - do you expect them to admit any liability?

The issue of Slick and that of the actions of DirectNIC are separate (tho combined in this scenario). One is about possible CP issues, the other is about the actions of a domain registrar. Slick's issue will probably be ongoing for some time.

On the DirectNic side, they have already stated their position by email and acted upon it and it's not in doubt. The conduct of their staff is below the level of a swamp when accusing clients who wish to remove domains that they "support child pornography". The conduct of their General Counsel concerning clients who wish to remove domains, is pathetic, but hardly a surprise.

DirectNic have elected to be protectors of public morals with admirable and righteous aims of stopping child pornography. That is their choice - in which case they need to start the DirecticNiC Center For Exploited Children and forget reporting offenses to law enforcement and just elect to act as LE. I strongly suggest that 50% of all DirectNic revenue be donated to such wonderful causes and DN status revert to a charity.

Whatever DirectNic say or don't say, is now irrelevant. They have made their bed - it's time to sleep in it. Webmasters pay for domains from registrars - they don't pay to listen to the opinion of the registrars. If there is an problem concerning domain content - anyone is free to report that issue to the relevant authority. DirectNic failed to do so.

Bottom line - who needs a registrar where their staff suggest people support child porn, they can't give contact point of responsible officers and their General Counsel behaves like an idiot? Nobody - only a fool. There is no reason to consider placing domains in the hands of idiots with an opinion - they can't be trusted.

scottybuzz · 12-15-2006, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

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

But thanks for your page 11 two cents. :D

i thought that one of his pages had some links then said we will update this 2257 page soon and then it said last updated may the 4th.

?

tranza · 12-15-2006, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

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

But thanks for your page 11 two cents. :D

Dude, was he hosting porn images or not?

If he hosts porn images he should have 2257 info ON HIS SITE.

And HE WAS linking to sites with CP.

As simple as that.

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 11:32 AM

Webby, all I can say is this: I wish you would apply the same standards to Slick as you do to Directnic. He too made his bed, and he has to lay in it.

Your entire accusations against Directnic are based on (a) the charges of Slick, status questionable, and (b) an email that was never copied, lost in an apparent disk crash.

I am thinking that there is way more to know, and your jump to a conclusion on Directnic (or on Slick) is way early in the game.

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranza

Dude, was he hosting porn images or not?

If he hosts porn images he should have 2257 info ON HIS SITE.

And HE WAS linking to sites with CP.

As simple as that.

"dude", I'm not going to start the entire argument over with you. Every single point you're raising has already been addressed in these threads ad nauseum. In light of that your johnny-cum-lamely comments are about as useful as tits on a towtruck.

Webby · 12-15-2006, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Webby, all I can say is this: I wish you would apply the same standards to Slick as you do to Directnic. He too made his bed, and he has to lay in it.

Your entire accusations against Directnic are based on (a) the charges of Slick, status questionable, and (b) an email that was never copied, lost in an apparent disk crash.

I am thinking that there is way more to know, and your jump to a conclusion on Directnic (or on Slick) is way early in the game.

I can't apply the same standard to Slick - I don't know the details about any alleged offenses - and neither do you. It's an ongoing issue.

DirectNic is not in doubt - that facts are known and they have acted on their "opinion". I contacted DN myself to establish some elements - their response was abysmal, (read DUMBO) and certainly not a company I'd trust with domains.

tranza · 12-15-2006, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

"dude", I'm not going to start the entire argument over with you. Every single point you're raising has already been addressed in these threads ad nauseum. In light of that your johnny-cum-lamely comments are about as useful as tits on a towtruck.

Lol, sorry if I don't live on the boards 24/7. Some of us actually work hard and make money from porn.

I'll never be pro-CP. He linked to sites with CP pictures, he never denied it. His replies were like: "I'm sorry for not being able to check hundreds of trades every single day to see if they had CP". And that's total bullshit when most of the sites he linked had CP and his own pictures played with the idea of CP.

But it's nice to see where you stand.

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

DirectNic have elected to be protectors of public morals with admirable and righteous aims of stopping child pornography. That is their choice - in which case they need to start the DirecticNiC Center For Exploited Children and forget reporting offenses to law enforcement and just elect to act as LE. I strongly suggest that 50% of all DirectNic revenue be donated to such wonderful causes and DN status revert to a charity.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but you could also view it this way:

Directnic, acting in their own best interest after allegedly recieving a complaint, has decided to withhold service on one of their customers, which they have every right to do so under their terms of service agreement. No moral crusade, no self-riteous arm of the law for the entire industry, just a company not wanting to knowingly enable anyone to publish "questionable" materials until they can look into it and determine just how questionable those materials are.

They certainly do reserve that right in their TOS, as does the TOS/AUP of virtually every other registrar and adult hosting provider I've looked at lately, and I've looked at several believe me.

I can't say I much care for the way they shut him down though and are holding his domains hostage. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out and what Slick's lawyer will come up with. There's a solution in all this somewhere, glad I'm not the one having to sift through all the facets to make a judgement on it though. I've got a headache already from it.

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranza

Lol, sorry if I don't live on the boards 24/7. Some of us actually work hard and make money from porn.

I'll never be pro-CP. He linked to sites with CP pictures, he never denied it. His replies were like: "I'm sorry for not being able to check hundreds of trades every single day to see if they had CP". And that's total bullshit when most of the sites he linked had CP and his own pictures played with the idea of CP.

But it's nice to see where you stand.

Always the idiot eh Tranza?

"nice to see where you stand" --- you are being a tool right there, did you know that?

Admit you haven't read any posts here, nor have you obviously read any of mine yet you're going to sit behind your keyboard and cock off?

Why can guys like you never ever seem to just get a clue?

Here, I'll provide one for you --- If you're too busy and important to actually read the thread, why not keep your lameass comments to yourself?

tranza · 12-15-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

"dude", I'm not going to start the entire argument over with you. Every single point you're raising has already been addressed in these threads ad nauseum. In light of that your johnny-cum-lamely comments are about as useful as tits on a towtruck.

Lol, sorry if I don't live on the boards 24/7. Some of us actually work hard and make money from porn.

I'll never be pro-CP. He linked to sites with CP pictures, he never denied it. His replies were like: "I'm sorry for not being able to check hundreds of trades every single day to see if they had CP". And that's total bullshit when most of the sites he linked had CP and his own pictures played with the idea of CP.

But it's nice to see where you stand.

just a punk · 12-15-2006, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranza

And HE WAS linking to sites with CP.

Google and Yahoo link to em' too. Time to sue Google? Don't you know who is Google's domain registrar by any chance?

tranza · 12-15-2006, 11:55 AM

Why do I have to read the thread? I saw what happened yesterday, I checked his site, and I have my own thoughts.

I don't give a flying fuck if you have written 10 pages already worth of comments. He had links to CP, he admited it, his sites were taken down. As simple as that. I don't care how much you guys try to twist thing around.

tranza · 12-15-2006, 11:56 AM

I guess everybody thinks it's ok to link to CP now, huh?

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Google and Yahoo link to em' too. Time to sue Google? Don't you know who is Google's domain registrar by any chance?

Stop. You are talking sense into an empty void.

Hear the (((echo)))?

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranza

I guess everybody thinks it's ok to link to CP now, huh?

You could be off reading the threads instead of continuing to make yourself look the fool.

Totally your call though. :D

just a punk · 12-15-2006, 12:03 PM

BTW, is someone will post a CP link to this board and GFY will be linked to a cp site for say 5 minutes (until the moderators will not discover and delete it). Should be this board considered illegal in such a case?

I believe that one must be responsible for such kind of crime only in case if he/she knowingly haven't removed the illegal links after the time he/she discovered them posted (added to trade) on his/her resource. I.e. one must be considered not guilty until he/she don't know about any illegal content posted to the resource.

This works for search engines, this works for hosting companies, this works for the online message boards and this must work for tgp/cj sites that have some kind of open trader adding system as well.

Webby · 12-15-2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Just playing devil's advocate here, but you could also view it this way:

Directnic, acting in their own best interest after allegedly recieving a complaint, has decided to withhold service on one of their customers, which they have every right to do so under their terms of service agreement. No moral crusade, no self-riteous arm of the law for the entire industry, just a company not wanting to knowingly enable anyone to publish "questionable" materials until they can look into it and determine just how questionable those materials are.

Totally correct CDS - and I'm sure DNCEC will produce a statement to that effect

Only my

- If I was stuck with the honor of being a domain registar and received complaints of criminal activity, the tendency would be pass these complaints to a qualified investigating authority. Admittedly, it's hard to make judgements when we don't know the details of any complaint, but shutting off domains without an investigation seems kinda crazy and open to liability irrespective of any TOS. It's also not helpful when the DNCEC suggest other webmasters support child pornography when they feel insecure about having their domains in the hands of folks who have "opinions". It's almost the same as trusting a Chinese registrar with a porn site in China

John69 · 12-15-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranza

Lol, sorry if I don't live on the boards 24/7. Some of us actually work hard and make money from porn.

I'll never be pro-CP. He linked to sites with CP pictures, he never denied it. His replies were like: "I'm sorry for not being able to check hundreds of trades every single day to see if they had CP". And that's total bullshit when most of the sites he linked had CP and his own pictures played with the idea of CP.

But it's nice to see where you stand.

Another great reply, this is how it really is folks.

pocketkangaroo · 12-15-2006, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranza

I guess everybody thinks it's ok to link to CP now, huh?

No it's not. Google and Yahoo! however link to more CP sites than any other site on the web. Would you be ok if they had their domains pulled for the same reason?

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis69

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

Raw Alex was one of my deciples for a while, he learned the trick well
;)

Alex, bravo!
;)

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Google and Yahoo link to em' too. Time to sue Google? Don't you know who is Google's domain registrar by any chance?

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).

Slick on the other hand has stated that he personally checked each link before activating it. He didn't just accidentily link to these people, he approved them.

Just a little different, but a matter likely for a court of law... certainly not something that would be settled here.

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winetalk

Raw Alex was one of my deciples for a while, he learned the trick well
;)

Alex, bravo!
;)

I managed to learn at least a little from the best debater I ever met

Webby · 12-15-2006, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I managed to learn at least a little from the best debater I ever met

So you admit you would argue your way out of a paper bag, no matter if you are wrong or right??

directfiesta · 12-15-2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I managed to learn at least a little from the best debater I ever met

Not a debater, but a sophiste.

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I managed to learn at least a little from the best debater I ever met

Serge is the MASTERbater. :D

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

So you admit you would argue your way out of a paper bag, no matter if you are wrong or right??

No, only admitting that Serge is the master-de-bater.

Kimmykim · 12-15-2006, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

DirectNic is not in doubt - that facts are known and they have acted on their "opinion". I contacted DN myself to establish some elements - their response was abysmal, (read DUMBO) and certainly not a company I'd trust with domains.

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.

Brujah · 12-15-2006, 12:32 PM

So, now that his thumbs are shutdown for being child porn.. won't the authorities want to know who took the pictures and get some IDs? The sponsors should be prepared for the increased exposure to their "young" looking content now too eh?

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Not a debater, but a sophiste.

Excuse me,
I can only quote the holy bible and Pontius Pilat:
"What is the Truth"?

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Not a debater, but a sophiste.

Excuse me,
I can only quote the holy bible and Pontius Pilat:
"What is the Truth"?

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Totally correct CDS - and I'm sure DNCEC will produce a statement to that effect

Only my

- If I was stuck with the honor of being a domain registar and received complaints of criminal activity, the tendency would be pass these complaints to a qualified investigating authority. Admittedly, it's hard to make judgements when we don't know the details of any complaint, but shutting off domains without an investigation seems kinda crazy and open to liability irrespective of any TOS. It's also not helpful when the DNCEC suggest other webmasters support child pornography when they feel insecure about having their domains in the hands of folks who have "opinions". It's almost the same as trusting a Chinese registrar with a porn site in China

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.

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Not a debater, but a sophiste.

Excuse me,
I can only quote the holy bible and Pontius Pilat:
"What is the Truth"?

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Not a debater, but a sophiste.

Excuse me,
I can only quote the holy bible and Pontius Pilat:
"What is the Truth"?

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Serge is the MASTERbater. :D

CD,
please look down between your legs and post what yopu see.

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winetalk

CD,
please look down between your legs and post what yopu see.

The object of your affection? :D

directfiesta · 12-15-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

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."

Amazing how you bashed on my posts saying exactly that ... not to mention the name calling , the allusion of supporting CP and your " mr. allways right " attitude .... on the thread I started on hosting to mock you.

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Amazing how you bashed on my posts saying exactly that ... not to mention the name calling , the allusion of supporting CP and your " mr. allways right " attitude .... on the thread I started on hosting to mock you.

He also said that off the record he would look into a complaint

which supports what I was saying.

And your foolish run to put up a thread attempting to mock me about my opinion was lame, childish and so very typical of you. And yes, you got spanked for it. I don't know how you word it in your AUP, but in those of the leading hosts I looked at they ALL to a one say they reserve the right to investigate and terminate.

But please, go on. Never drop this, keep harping on it... it really does make you look the better person. :D

directfiesta · 12-15-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Amazing how you bashed on my posts saying exactly that ... not to mention the name calling , the allusion of supporting CP and your " mr. allways right " attitude .... on the thread I started on hosting to mock you.

.. silence ......

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

I knew it wouldn't take you long to snap and resort to your usual childish insults. You really should stick to your "I hate Bush" and "vive la quebec" crusades chum.

And as a host you SHOULD ask for proof of age of a model if you are hosting the images on your servers and the content looks questionable. If you don't you run the risk of A) Being put through the wringer yourself for hosting it should it ever be proven by the authorities to be in violation, and B) you open yourself to further being called an idiot among the adult community.

AND, what you cut/pasted by Mike AI still does not say that they intend to retain copies of that information indefinitely. They only wish to SEE it.

But you'll of course continue thinking of this and every other topic we disagree on in your usual skewed retarded way. Off you go now.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...&postcount=178

nick3131 · 12-15-2006, 01:13 PM

Serge serious question

what is your obsession with martyrdom? (im just curious)

tuh dumayesh yeltsin bul martyr?

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winetalk

CD,
please look down between your legs and post what yopu see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

The object of your affection? :D

Come on, that was funny, admit it.

Man hug? :D

directfiesta · 12-15-2006, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

He also said that off the record he would look into a complaint

which supports what I was saying.

more spin ....

at that time, that is NOT what you were saying ... read above.

You were saying that is what of the duty of the host to inspect what was on his server ( in a pre-emptive way, not on a complaint )... and ask for proof if images were hosted on the server ....

now, continue spinning ....

directfiesta · 12-15-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

I don't know how you word it in your AUP, but in those of the leading hosts I looked at they ALL to a one say they reserve the right to investigate and terminate.

http://www.pdghosting.com/adult/content/view/12/30/

last update was the 7th of may 2005.

Funny, by a major host here, that everyone recommends, has word for word the same text, with a date of November 16 2006

I understand that you hate Quebeckers ...

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 01:23 PM

Fiestaboy, if you think a court will absolutely never hold you responsible for what you host even after being notified via a written complaint, email or otherwise, then knock yourself out. Sitting back and doing nothing and waiting for a court order is fine in some cases, but all that might change once it can be proven that you knew full well there was something questionable on your servers. If you don't take your complaints seriously that's definitely your business.

I believe our little side-argument is now concluded, since we obviously agree to disagree.

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

The object of your affection? :D

wrong!

The correct answer was...NOTHING!
;)

directfiesta · 12-15-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Fiestaboy, if you think a court will absolutely never hold you responsible for what you host even after being notified via a written complaint, email or otherwise, then knock yourself out. Sitting back and doing nothing and waiting for a court order is fine in some cases, but all that might change once it can be proven that you knew full well there was something questionable on your servers. If you don't take your complaints seriously that's definitely your business.

I believe our little side-argument is now concluded, since we obviously agree to disagree.

assume ... but read the AUP.... you are pathetic.... And I posted exacxtly what I would do in that case ... no point to find the post, your relentless spin is a demontration of your hatrid of my nationalty....

Now, your cows are waiting for you.

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

[url]I understand that you hate Quebeckers ...

Talk about spin, and quite lame and ignorant spin at that. I have several relatives and friends in Quebec. I don't hate anyone, but I take issue with those like you who prove their ignorance and then choose to wallow in it rather than think and converse in a reasonable manner.

Anything else?

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick3131

Serge serious question

what is your obsession with martyrdom? (im just curious)

tuh dumayesh yeltsin bul martyr?

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"?????

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winetalk

wrong!

The correct answer was...NOTHING!
;)

My nothing begs to differ.

;-))

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

My nothing begs to differ.

;-))

"This thread is useless without picture!"

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 01:30 PM

600 posts later...

12-15-2006, 11:55 AM	#562
tranza ICQ: 197-556-237 Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: BRASIL !!! Posts: 57,559	Why do I have to read the thread? I saw what happened yesterday, I checked his site, and I have my own thoughts. I don't give a flying fuck if you have written 10 pages already worth of comments. He had links to CP, he admited it, his sites were taken down. As simple as that. I don't care how much you guys try to twist thing around. __________________ I'm just a newbie.

12-15-2006, 11:56 AM	#563
tranza ICQ: 197-556-237 Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: BRASIL !!! Posts: 57,559	I guess everybody thinks it's ok to link to CP now, huh? __________________ I'm just a newbie.

12-15-2006, 12:03 PM	#566
just a punk So fuckin' bored Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 32,384	BTW, is someone will post a CP link to this board and GFY will be linked to a cp site for say 5 minutes (until the moderators will not discover and delete it). Should be this board considered illegal in such a case? I believe that one must be responsible for such kind of crime only in case if he/she knowingly haven't removed the illegal links after the time he/she discovered them posted (added to trade) on his/her resource. I.e. one must be considered not guilty until he/she don't know about any illegal content posted to the resource. This works for search engines, this works for hosting companies, this works for the online message boards and this must work for tgp/cj sites that have some kind of open trader adding system as well. __________________ Obey the Cowgod

12-15-2006, 12:32 PM	#578
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	So, now that his thumbs are shutdown for being child porn.. won't the authorities want to know who took the pictures and get some IDs? The sponsors should be prepared for the increased exposure to their "young" looking content now too eh? __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

12-15-2006, 01:13 PM	#589
nick3131 Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Gainesville, Florida Posts: 1,186	Serge serious question what is your obsession with martyrdom? (im just curious) tuh dumayesh yeltsin bul martyr? __________________ Signed nick3131

12-15-2006, 11:32 AM	#554
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Webby, all I can say is this: I wish you would apply the same standards to Slick as you do to Directnic. He too made his bed, and he has to lay in it. Your entire accusations against Directnic are based on (a) the charges of Slick, status questionable, and (b) an email that was never copied, lost in an apparent disk crash. I am thinking that there is way more to know, and your jump to a conclusion on Directnic (or on Slick) is way early in the game.

12-15-2006, 01:23 PM	#593
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	Fiestaboy, if you think a court will absolutely never hold you responsible for what you host even after being notified via a written complaint, email or otherwise, then knock yourself out. Sitting back and doing nothing and waiting for a court order is fine in some cases, but all that might change once it can be proven that you knew full well there was something questionable on your servers. If you don't take your complaints seriously that's definitely your business. I believe our little side-argument is now concluded, since we obviously agree to disagree. __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

12-15-2006, 01:30 PM	#600
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	600 posts later...