Well DirectNic Shut Me Down - Page 8 - GoFuckYourself.com

spider_x · 12-14-2006, 07:41 PM

You most likely are the victim of domain hijacking. Its not your fault. You better have a good lawyer who can get to the bottom of this.

stickyfingerz · 12-14-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

translation:

"ok, you have stripped me of my standby, default argument - "you are a asshole republican and religious nut" and i have nothing else to say because i can't participate in any conversation in a rational, calm and intelligent manner discussing important points and looking at all sides of the issue... without retreating to partisan politics and babbling on about how Clinton should have became the first Supreme Emporer of Planet Earth"

Think everyone knows where my political pendulum swings, and I agree with dig on this one. This company does not have the right to hold his domains hostage. I disagree with alot of his site content, but that isnt the issue here.

stickyfingerz · 12-14-2006, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spider_x

You most likely are the victim of domain hijacking. Its not your fault. You better have a good lawyer who can get to the bottom of this.

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Secondly are you saying a domain name is not property?

no... i am saying its a simple issue of law. either you are right or you are wrong and that answer is found in the law... not in your opinion of what constitutes truth and justice.

so... either you are correct and the domain owner owns the domain as his own personal property and the registrar has no legal authority to interfere with the domain/business etc (which is done all the time) ... or every registrar is correct and their TOS is within the law.

do you know which one it is? or like almost everyone else, are you just taking a shot in the dark because you have a lucky feeling and heart felt belief and haven't bothered to actually consider what the law says?

John69 · 12-14-2006, 07:45 PM

The bottom line is someone has to take out the trash.

1-2-3

your out.

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Think everyone knows where my political pendulum swings, and I agree with dig on this one. This company does not have the right to hold his domains hostage. I disagree with alot of his site content, but that isnt the issue here.

again... thier "rights" are defined by law. like almost everyone else, you are confusing what rights they actually have, with what rights or limitations of rights you think or feel there should be.

two different things completely.

spider_x · 12-14-2006, 07:46 PM

This is one big conspiracy to badmouth directnic and make everyone paranoid about the feds. All because some faggo in Slovakia jacked your shit.

stickyfingerz · 12-14-2006, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

no... i am saying its a simple issue of law. either you are right or you are wrong and that answer is found in the law... not in your opinion of what constitutes truth and justice.

so... either you are correct and the domain owner owns the domain as his own personal property and the registrar has no legal authority to interfere with the domain/business etc (which is done all the time) ... or every registrar is correct and their TOS is within the law.

do you know which one it is? or like almost everyone else, are you just taking a shot in the dark because you have a lucky feeling and heart felt belief and haven't bothered to actually consider what the law says?

Please quote me the law that says the registrar has the right to police and hold domains hostage. Now if the Government requests the registrar to put a hold on the domain name that is a entirely differnt beast.

John69 · 12-14-2006, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

again... thier "rights" are defined by law. like almost everyone else, you are confusing what rights they actually have, with what rights or limitations of rights you think or feel there should be.

two different things completely.

the host should have shut him down is the correct move, that must have failed in some way trying, so they went after the register.

stickyfingerz · 12-14-2006, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

again... thier "rights" are defined by law. like almost everyone else, you are confusing what rights they actually have, with what rights or limitations of rights you think or feel there should be.

two different things completely.

Again what specific law are you referring to?

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Please quote me the law that says the registrar has the right to police and hold domains hostage. Now if the Government requests the registrar to put a hold on the domain name that is a entirely differnt beast.

why me? i am not jumping up and down, proclaiming what rights they have or don't have... you and others are.

if you know what rights they have... lets hear it. your contention is that they are breaking more laws than Al Capone.. should be an easy thing to prove if correct.

cayne · 12-14-2006, 07:53 PM

great news:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F....asp?coid=1014

good luck slick, hope everything gets solved asap!

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Again what specific law are you referring to?

dude... you are saying they "have no right to do what they did"

you are stating it as fact.

if its fact.. then there is a law or body of law or even ICAAN regulations/agreements that specifically prohibits them from doing so. its in writing somewhere. otherwise, on what grounds can you factually state "they have no rights to do..."

being that the TOS of EVERY registrar gives them unlimited rights to the domain, i am guessing that you are completely wrong.

dig420 · 12-14-2006, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

do you know which one it is? or like almost everyone else, are you just taking a shot in the dark because you have a lucky feeling and heart felt belief and haven't bothered to actually consider what the law says?

he doesn't know anything.. he's mikey's pal. He won't even say whose side he's on, he'll just yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap and never say anything, until you're nauseous from being in the same thread with him.

dig420 · 12-14-2006, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

dude... you are saying they "have no right to do what they did"

you are stating it as fact.

if its fact.. then there is a law or body of law or even ICAAN regulations/agreements that specifically prohibits them from doing so. its in writing somewhere. otherwise, on what grounds can you factually state "they have no rights to do..."

being that the TOS of EVERY registrar gives them unlimited rights to the domain, i am guessing that you are completely wrong.

MY tos says I can sodomize pleasurepays at will. What time is good for you?

dig420 · 12-14-2006, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

dude... you are saying they "have no right to do what they did"

you are stating it as fact.

if its fact.. then there is a law or body of law or even ICAAN regulations/agreements that specifically prohibits them from doing so. its in writing somewhere. otherwise, on what grounds can you factually state "they have no rights to do..."

being that the TOS of EVERY registrar gives them unlimited rights to the domain, i am guessing that you are completely wrong.

nigga. Read the statement from the FSC attorney, then stop your yapping.

Webby · 12-14-2006, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

he doesn't know anything.. he's mikey's pal. He won't even say whose side he's on, he'll just yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap and never say anything, until you're nauseous from being in the same thread with him.

You did notice that nauseous pointless yapping?

stickyfingerz · 12-14-2006, 08:09 PM

All I know is expect to see domain name costs start going up from the lawsuits about to fly about.

http://www.goforlaw.com/Legal_Articl..._Liability.htm

Interesting little article.

dig420 · 12-14-2006, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

You did notice that nauseous pointless yapping?

how could you not? it's his trademark.

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

he doesn't know anything.. he's mikey's pal. He won't even say whose side he's on, he'll just yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap and never say anything, until you're nauseous from being in the same thread with him.

you hate Mike simply because he has always been honest about being conservative and has always bettered you in any political debate because you are terminally irrational.

that has nothing to do with his business and personal reputation... which no one is disputing.

further... Mike doesnt run DirectNIC you dumb turd. he is simply a partner and someone that people on this board recognize as being a part of DirectNIC. i seriously doubt he had anything to do with any decisions made before it came to this board.

finally, right now, with what i know at this moment, i agree with you for the most part... if they have no legal liability, then they shouldn't be meddling in someones business. however, there is also a very strong argument that if someone is dealing in CP, the quickest way to stop it is by shutting down the domain... and "reporting it to the FBI" definately doesn't result in immediate action. i would guess that in the vast majority of cases, it results in little to no action and in those few cases where something is done, its often after a lengthy investigation. so they made a business decision. Was it legal? i dont know. i havent seen ANYONE state conclusively why it isn't - i.e. specifically showing where/how/what federal privacy law is broken by simply making a request... or what information can and can't be lawfully shared.

its always funny that everyone has an opinion about "who has what rights" (rights which are defined somewhere in writing) and are so unwilling to get to the heart of the issue and start a discussion rooted in reality and fact and figure out what those rights are exactly, what is legal and illegal and why... when its just easier to babble on, mindlessly expressing irrational fears and anxiety, leaving facts behind.

You argue like a bitch.

wjxxx · 12-14-2006, 08:21 PM

I predict 15 pages

crockett · 12-14-2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cayne

great news:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F....asp?coid=1014

good luck slick, hope everything gets solved asap!

Why is that great news? That was yesterday.. today they shut his sites down..

dig420 · 12-14-2006, 08:24 PM

at least we're babbling with an opinion and something to say. You're just babbling. I still have no idea what your point is, if you even have one. Neither does anyone else.

dig420 · 12-14-2006, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

Was it legal? i dont know. i havent seen ANYONE state conclusively why it isn't - i.e. specifically showing where/how/what federal privacy law is broken by simply making a request... or what information can and can't be lawfully shared.

well that's because you're retarded. look up the page a little or do a search for FSC and 'lawyer'.

dig420 · 12-14-2006, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

you hate Mike simply because he has always been honest about being conservative and has always bettered you in any political debate because you are terminally irrational.

that has nothing to do with his business and personal reputation... which no one is disputing.

further... Mike doesnt run DirectNIC you dumb turd. he is simply a partner and someone that people on this board recognize as being a part of DirectNIC. i seriously doubt he had anything to do with any decisions made before it came to this board.

finally, right now, with what i know at this moment, i agree with you for the most part... if they have no legal liability, then they shouldn't be meddling in someones business. however, there is also a very strong argument that if someone is dealing in CP, the quickest way to stop it is by shutting down the domain... and "reporting it to the FBI" definately doesn't result in immediate action. i would guess that in the vast majority of cases, it results in little to no action and in those few cases where something is done, its often after a lengthy investigation. so they made a business decision. Was it legal? i dont know. i havent seen ANYONE state conclusively why it isn't - i.e. specifically showing where/how/what federal privacy law is broken by simply making a request... or what information can and can't be lawfully shared.

its always funny that everyone has an opinion about "who has what rights" (rights which are defined somewhere in writing) and are so unwilling to get to the heart of the issue and start a discussion rooted in reality and fact and figure out what those rights are exactly, what is legal and illegal and why... when its just easier to babble on, mindlessly expressing irrational fears and anxiety, leaving facts behind.

You argue like a bitch.

yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yapyap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yapyap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yapyap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap

and somewhere in there I think he said he agrees with me! lol!

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

at least we're babbling with an opinion and something to say. You're just babbling. I still have no idea what your point is, if you even have one. Neither does anyone else.

you dont understand because you are simply incapable of understanding a world where its not "me against them". I am not against you.. i am not for Mike. i keep asking the real questions and no one can answer them.

everyone is soo sure about what they can and can't do..

its the "they can't do this" part that i am wondering about.

so far everyone seems quite certain that they have no right to do anything at all... yet the TOS of every registrar does in fact give them unlimited rights to the domain.

something doesn't add up there... wouldn't you agree?

asking for documents is illegal... yet no one can actually explain it or point out the law. if its that cut and dry, it should be pretty simple.. "federal statute xyz. section 1, title 10 states:........" - but apparently no one can find that either or even cares to.

DirectNIC escalated things today. sorry... i am just not willing to accept that they did it without legal grounds. they are not a bunch of 19-20yr old dot commers. these are people that have been around, understand the weight of their actions, understand the precedence being set and understand the potential negative impact that could have on their business. excuse me for being reasonable but "MikeAI is a Conservative Nazi" just doesn't seem like a good explanation.

all i have asked is "how do you know its illegal" or "how do you know they dont have that right" and all i get in return is remarks like "you're a conservative christian asshole"

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

well that's because you're retarded. look up the page a little or do a search for FSC and 'lawyer'.

what law was cited?

none.

thanks.

so far we have a group of attorneys who seem to firmly feel they are acting with in the law and ONE attorney/PR guy claiming they aren't.

a reasonable and intelligent question to ask is "who is right and why"

dig420 · 12-14-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

what law was cited?

none.

thanks.

so far we have a group of attorneys who seem to firmly feel they are acting with in the law and ONE attorney/PR guy claiming they aren't.

a reasonable and intelligent question to ask is "who is right and why"

yappity yappity yappity blah blah blah

so on and so forth

RawAlex · 12-14-2006, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

well that's because you're retarded. look up the page a little or do a search for FSC and 'lawyer'.

Dig, I put Mr Douglas's opinion along with many other opinions of people who have no direct access to the materials at hand: He is speculating.

I think he has bigger things to worry about facing the feds over 2257 inspections (they ones he said wouldn't happen but did). Mr Douglas has not been at Directnic's offices, and he don't think he would be entirely aware of the circusmtances. In fact, I would even go out on a limb and say that he likely formed his opinion based on some of the grand exaggerations that have been put on in places like this (like Directnic attempting to do a 2257 inspection, Directnic asking for personal model information, Directnic acting as judge and jury).

I think you would find that, after some sober second thought and maybe with more documentation and information in front of him, that he might have a slightly different opinion.

Until he (and the rest of us) are better informed, it is all for nothing. What is done is done.

Juicy D. Links · 12-14-2006, 08:42 PM

My beef bayonet has been on overdrive today

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

yappity yappity yappity blah blah blah

so on and so forth

funny how wanting to discuss hard facts is the fastest way to kill a discussion on GFY.

KrisKross · 12-14-2006, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

Are you really honestly trying to say that you didn't have a problem with some of those thumbs?

I just went and looked... majorpervert, slicknetworks, and all of the sites listed on slicknetworks are loading fine for me. This is NOT a cache, it's the first time I've visited them. And what I saw made me damn sure that DirectNic was well within the boundaries of both the law and what's "right" and "wrong" to call you out on this.

Also, domaintools does not have your domains listed as a registrar-lock, they have it as clientDeleteProhibited as of the time of me writing this post.
A traceroute from domaintools also gets through just fine, as does a ping.

If you're going to play cybersleuth, at least start by having a clue.

The full status for majorpervert.com is:

Domain Name: MAJORPERVERT.COM
Registrar: INTERCOSMOS MEDIA GROUP, INC. D/B/A DIRECTNIC.COM
Whois Server: whois.directnic.com
Referral URL: http://www.directnic.com
Name Server: NS1.ADVANCEDHOSTERS.COM
Name Server: NS2.ADVANCEDHOSTERS.COM
RRP Status: REGISTRAR-HOLD
Status: clientHold
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 14-Dec-2006
Creation Date: 06-Feb-2000
Expiration Date: 06-Feb-2008

Your tracert and ping gave you results because his host is still up. Only his domain was taken down. And your ability to visit the sites is likely because the changes hadn't propogated to your ISP's DNS servers yet.

John69 · 12-14-2006, 09:32 PM

ADVANCEDHOSTERS.COM

should have taking the site out first.

Corona · 12-14-2006, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John69

ADVANCEDHOSTERS.COM

should have taking the site out first.

....If he had illegal content on his site which I don't think has been shown to be the case.

darksoul · 12-15-2006, 01:11 AM

Anyone got an official response from ICANN yet ?
and are there any updates ?

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 01:19 AM

Dude, it's 3AM Eastern time... I don't think any ICANN people are going to surface for a while, and likely the only people they would answer anything to (if they ever were inclined) would be the domain holder and the registrar of record.

I don't think that ICANN is coming to GFY to answer you questions, sorry.

darksoul · 12-15-2006, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Dude, it's 3AM Eastern time... I don't think any ICANN people are going to surface for a while, and likely the only people they would answer anything to (if they ever were inclined) would be the domain holder and the registrar of record.

I don't think that ICANN is coming to GFY to answer you questions, sorry.

I was waiting for you to show up in a minute.

I didn't asked ICANN to come to gfy however rest assure people are
communicating with them about the matter.
Anyway, you've been nothing but a DN kiss ass for the past two days
and sorry if I'm not gonna waste another day with your delusional ramblings.
Please fuck off already.

sicone · 12-15-2006, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I don't think that ICANN is coming to GFY to answer you questions, sorry.

What.. are the folks at ICANN to good for the likes of GFY?

pornonada · 12-15-2006, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

All I know is expect to see domain name costs start going up from the lawsuits about to fly about.

http://www.goforlaw.com/Legal_Articl..._Liability.htm

Interesting little article.

Agreed, was really in interesting article, hope it's ok i copy & paste the important parts. I think it's worth a read to understand it is PROPERTY to the Registrant.

Quote:

The Legal Issues

By the time the 9th Circuit received the case, Cohen (the con man) had violated every court order and absconded with all of the money to Mexico. Since a $50,000 reward offered by Kremen failed to bring Cohen back to the U.S., the only viable defendant left was Network Solutions and it had filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it could not be held liable as a matter of law.

The District Court sided with Network Solutions and held that Kremen had no implied contract because there was no consideration: Kremen had registered the domain name for free. The court rejected the third-party contract claim on the ground that the cooperative agreement did not indicate a clear intent to grant enforceable contract rights to registrants. The conversion claims fared no better. The court agreed that sex.com was Kremen's property, but concluded that it was intangible property to which the tort of conversion does not apply. The conversion by bailee claim failed for the additional reason that Network Solutions was not a bailee.

Thus, Kremen was left with a huge injury (theft and exploitation of the domain he registered), but literally no remedy under the law. Confronted with this obvious injustice, the 9th Circuit applied the old legal addage that "every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." What was Kremen's right to sex.com? The 9th Circuit found that he had an "intangible property" right, since a domain name satisfied the legal definition of "property." The court commented:

"Registering a domain name is like staking a claim to a plot of land at the title office. It informs others that the domain name is the registrant's and no one else's. Many registrants also invest substantial time and money to develop and promote websites that depend on their domain names. Ensuring that they reap the benefits of their investments reduces uncertainty and thus encourages investment in the first place, promoting the growth of the Internet overall."

Much of the remaining opinion is devoted to legal technicalities of whether the domain name was reduced to a document for purposes of conversion law (and Network Solutions took the idiotic view that a domain name is not supported by any document). The Court of course rejected this, and held that the Domain Name System (DNS) "is a document (or perhaps more accurately a collection of documents). That it is stored in electronic form rather than on ink and paper is immaterial."

The court also rejected a narrow Restatement approach (adopted by some states) that limited conversion claims to only tangible property rights. Finding that CA law was more broad and applicable to all property rights, tangible or intangible, the Court held that "Kremen therefore had an intangible property right in his domain name, and a jury could find that Network Solutions 'wrongful[ly] dispos[ed] of' that right to his detriment by handing the domain name over to Cohen." Thus, the summary judgment granted by the District Court on the conversion claim was reversed, and the case was sent back for a jury trial.

Judge Kozinski is (arguably) one of the best legal minds in the nation, and he carefully considered the consequences of the ruling:

"Exposing Network Solutions to liability when it gives away a registrant's domain name on the basis of a forged letter is no different from holding a corporation liable when it gives away someone's shares under the same circumstances. We have only applied settled principles of conversion law to what the parties and the district court all agree is a species of property. It would not be unfair to hold Network Solutions responsible and force it to try to recoup its losses by chasing down Cohen. The district court was worried that 'the threat of litigation threatens to stifle the registration system by requiring further regulations by [Network Solutions] and potential increases in fees.' Given that Network Solutions's 'regulations' evidently allowed it to hand over a registrant's domain name on the basis of a facially suspect letter without even contacting him, 'further regulations' don't seem like such a bad idea. And the prospect of higher fees presents no issue here that it doesn't in any other context. A bank could lower its ATM fees if it didn't have to pay security guards, but we doubt most depositors would think that was a good idea. We apply the common law until the legislature tells us otherwise. And the common law does not stand idle while people give away the property of others."

The Implications

There are several important lessons to be drawn from the sex.com case.

What must domain registrars now do?

Domain name registrars can no longer sit back and do nothing when there is a dispute over a domain registration, and certainly never simply transfer the domain to another without investigation of that person's legal right. A registrar faces liability for conversion of a property right in the domain name, under CA common law.

What is considered conversion under CA common law?

To establish conversion, a plaintiff must show "ownership or right to possession of property, wrongful disposition of the property right and damages." "Disposition" may involve the taking of the property, but also covers any actual interference with the ownership/property right, including destruction, alteration or transfer (as well as unauthorized use and refusal to return after demand).

What is "wrongful" is a bit tricky to understand. The ACT of interference (taking, loss, transfer, etc.) must be knowingly and intentionally done. Mere negligence in doing the act is insufficient to hold someone liable for conversion. Thus, for example, if a defendant did not intend to transfer a domain name, but did so because some employee negligently pushed a wrong button, there is no liability for conversion.

However, wrongful intent is not necessary, and mistake, good faith and due care are ordinarily immaterial, and cannot be used as defenses to conversion. Thus, ignorance of ownership is no excuse, as is mistaken delivery to the wrong person. For example, unauthorized sale of pledged stock and release of securities, without complying with required formalities, have been found to be conversion. This only reflects a social policy that as between the innocent property owner and the party who is responsible for the act, the latter should bear the loss. It is not to say that this party has no recourse against the transferee - it can recoup its damages as against the party in possession of the converted property through what is called an "indemnity" claim.

Who may be liable for conversion of a domain name?

While the Kremen case dealt solely with Network Solutions (now VeriSign), CA common law extends liability for conversion to even innocent agents. Thus, an agent who sells converted goods for his prinicipal, or turns over money with knowledge of paramount title, is liable for conversion. This could include any party that is asked to transfer a domain, such as domain name resellers, web hosting service providers, web programmers, or ISPs Innocent buyers are in the same position, and can be liable for conversion. Again, this harsh rule is moderated by their ability to file a cross-action against the principal/transferor.

Are there no defenses or solutions to safe transfer of domains?

Sure there are. First, if transferring a domain, one can simply take steps to make sure that the true owner gave permission. Network Solutions screwed up in failing to contact the registered owner to verify the alleged permission, and relied on a badly forged and implausible letter.

Second, one can refuse to take on the responsibility of being the registrant of record for a customer, contrary to what many ISP and web hosting services seem to want to do. If a Registrar (like VeriSign) is requested to transfer a domain, the ISP/web service then has to verify that the request to transfer is authorized by the person on whose behalf the doman is held. Why not simply register in the name of the customer and save the headache?

Third, a defense of "privilege" exists where the defendant has a claim for unpaid fees, or lien on the property, and has a privilege to peacefully repossess the property. To that end, prompt recourse to the courts should be sought, and one case concluded that a reasonable opportunity to determine the claim must be afforded (e.g. in a court proceeding), which "negatived any theory of conversion."

As such, anyone that is in a position of transfering domains (and wants to register in its own name for another person) should consult with an attorney to correctly structure documents and customer agreements, as well as internal policies, in order to reduce the risk of unauthorized transfer. To that end, "indemnity" agreements are essential to assure the ability to recoup losses in case of a problem domain transfer. In cases of competing claims for a domain, an attorney may also save many future problems by getting a court to determine the true right of ownership.

In short, the general strategy, when dealing with authorizations for domain name transfers, should include careful record keeping, proof of all ownership rights, and close communication and verification with the current domain owner. Proper authorization procedures will go a long way in reducing the risk of a civil lawsuit.

FunkyDog · 12-15-2006, 02:27 AM

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

Maybe it is about time we got a reaction from the sponsors who provided the content in the first place.......

Should we start flaming at every webmaster with teen content on his site now? No we shouldn't! Fuck this, it dissapoints me how fellow webmaster stand in line to jump the saga waggon to fuck another webmaster. I myself don't do teen, not because it worries me, just because it's not my thing.

IF infact the content appears to be CP then they should put all who used it and provided it in the same room and set the building on fire, i agree. BUT shouldn't we wait it out BEFORE we start pointing a finger? Remember, if you are pointing your finger to someone, three fingers are still pointing towards yourself!

Put yourself in his shoes....... this ISN'T the situation you want to find yourself in when you wake up. Just calm down on Slick's ass, get of his back already.

darksoul · 12-15-2006, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunkyDog

Why are you all waiting in line to smash down a fellow webmaster? I don't get it, i really don't.

If you noticed the trend nobody has anything with Slick, and everyone is against registrars policing the internet, besides some old farts that think they've got first to the internet and their piece of the pie its getting smaller everyday.
Just look how many mummies the DN drama dug up.

FunkyDog · 12-15-2006, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksoul

If you noticed the trend nobody has anything with Slick, and everyone is against registrars policing the internet, besides some old farts that think they've got first to the internet and their piece of the pie its getting smaller everyday.
Just look how many mummies the DN drama dug up.

Point taken

I just get to emotional sometimes

Biggy · 12-15-2006, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunkyDog

Maybe it is about time we got a reaction from the sponsors who provided the content in the first place.......

Our content is fully 2257 compliant. I have told Slick with respect to this matter we would provide him with any documentation he would need.

sicone · 12-15-2006, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggy

Our content is fully 2257 compliant. I have told Slick with respect to this matter we would provide him with any documentation he would need.

Good to hear sponsors are stepping up in this situation

FunkyDog · 12-15-2006, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggy

Our content is fully 2257 compliant. I have told Slick with respect to this matter we would provide him with any documentation he would need.

If Slick get all the documentation he needs he shouldn't have any problems.

Gunni · 12-15-2006, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

so far everyone seems quite certain that they have no right to do anything at all... yet the TOS of every registrar does in fact give them unlimited rights to the domain.

Don't be stupid, TOS means shit if it goes against the law. You think you can put in TOS "if you buy my services I have the right to kill you" and then get away with murder?

DN screwed up and shot themselves in the foot, they've opened up for a lawsuit and lost the confidence of their customers (or part of them at least)

pornonada · 12-15-2006, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunkyDog

Maybe it is about time we got a reaction from the sponsors who provided the content in the first place.......

Exactly my thoughts too. When it comes to promos, new FHGs, new Sites or to recruit you to promote their programs, the have no problem message you all the day, make 1000's of posts and whatever not. But when it gets hot you can't find them. The very least thing i would have awaited is that the sponsors he is promoting and that are mentioned say something and make a clear statement that they have the ID's, that DN can contact them or something that helps solving and clear there problems that occured, but no, they are hidding somewhere (with some expections only).

Makes me really thinking if this is like a partnership should work?

So not only the webmasters has to deal with with authorities, hosts, registrars, complaining people and 100 other things, but doesn't get any support when it's needed?! So the webmaster has to defend the sponsors FHGs instead of the sponsor making a single post and/or for example showing proof that a given gallery is legit? Fine, if they hide it due the model privacy issue, than at least give webmasters access to the model ID's/releases or whatever that proofs a given model is legit in the webmasters members area so they can pull the info if needed like in the case here. I can't understand how it's ok to "spam" the webmasters daily with 1000's of FHGs and to beg to list them and than a sudden not giving any support?!!?

That really makes you re-think the way you are involved in this business as a webmaster/tgp owner.

I mean principally i thrust my sponsors, but seems that it is not enough to avoid jail or problems nowadays. So what can be done?
Fuck, so far i was really a supporter of privacy for the models, but hell, not on the cost that webmaster run into major problems. So why not attaching a blacked-out really privacy info from the model ID, but with clear age verification, photo and maybe ID number or whatever it needs to make it a valide Proof to each FHG you send the webmasters for listing?

Hell, i agree that the models should have privacy, but webmasters should also have a chance to be on the sure and legal side of the law and not be forced to operate in some kind of grey zone or today is a lucky day but what will be tomorrow way. If a model wants her full privacy, why is she doing porn movies which millions of people will view? All my domains have my original, full and correct whois info, that's it. I stand for what i'am doing. If i don't to have privacy info attached to adultdomains/adult business than i have to advertise amazon products, it's that easy.

There must be a way to protect the webmaters, so maybe some sponsors have some better ideas on what they are paln to do to protect/support/assist their partners and webmasters and to avoid such issues.

By the way, that's just a general thought and not related generally to slick/directnic/cp or whatever, so please spare me with direct related examples or whatever, but better think about possible solutions than just bitching.

pocketkangaroo · 12-15-2006, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunkyDog

If Slick get all the documentation he needs he shouldn't have any problems.

If Slick gets all his documentation and a good lawyer, he'll be getting a nice big check from DirectNic.

FunkyDog · 12-15-2006, 03:32 AM

400............

devilspost · 12-15-2006, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunkyDog

If Slick get all the documentation he needs he shouldn't have any problems.

DirectNic does'nt have the authority to demand it.

We dont need no stinking badges!

12-14-2006, 07:41 PM	#351
spider_x Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 481	You most likely are the victim of domain hijacking. Its not your fault. You better have a good lawyer who can get to the bottom of this. __________________ Want to get off the keyboard and get laid? Visit this link now for genuinely seductive mind-blowing sex!

12-14-2006, 07:45 PM	#355
John69 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 942	The bottom line is someone has to take out the trash. 1-2-3 your out. __________________ DARKSOUL: thanks but no thanks, your over priced.

12-14-2006, 07:46 PM	#357
spider_x Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 481	This is one big conspiracy to badmouth directnic and make everyone paranoid about the feds. All because some faggo in Slovakia jacked your shit. __________________ Want to get off the keyboard and get laid? Visit this link now for genuinely seductive mind-blowing sex!

12-14-2006, 07:53 PM	#362
cayne My time is coming... Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Europe --- eMail: service(at)badasscompany.com --- ICQ: 60288510 Posts: 7,476	great news: http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F....asp?coid=1014 good luck slick, hope everything gets solved asap! __________________ If lesbian anal is wrong, I don't want to be right.

12-14-2006, 09:32 PM	#383
John69 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 942	ADVANCEDHOSTERS.COM should have taking the site out first. __________________ DARKSOUL: thanks but no thanks, your over priced.

12-14-2006, 08:09 PM	#368
stickyfingerz Doin fine Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 24,983	All I know is expect to see domain name costs start going up from the lawsuits about to fly about. http://www.goforlaw.com/Legal_Articl..._Liability.htm Interesting little article.

12-14-2006, 08:21 PM	#371
wjxxx So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,448	I predict 15 pages

12-14-2006, 08:24 PM	#373
dig420 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 9,240	at least we're babbling with an opinion and something to say. You're just babbling. I still have no idea what your point is, if you even have one. Neither does anyone else.

12-14-2006, 08:42 PM	#380
Juicy D. Links So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: N.Y. -Long Island -- Posts: 122,992	My beef bayonet has been on overdrive today

12-15-2006, 01:11 AM	#385
darksoul Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: /root/ Posts: 4,997	Anyone got an official response from ICANN yet ? and are there any updates ? __________________ 1337 5y54\|)m1n: 157717888 BM-2cUBw4B2fgiYAfjkE7JvWaJMiUXD96n9tN Cambooth

12-15-2006, 01:19 AM	#386
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Dude, it's 3AM Eastern time... I don't think any ICANN people are going to surface for a while, and likely the only people they would answer anything to (if they ever were inclined) would be the domain holder and the registrar of record. I don't think that ICANN is coming to GFY to answer you questions, sorry.

12-15-2006, 02:27 AM	#390
FunkyDog Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 541	I can't get into my head how some of you react towards Slick. I don't know Slick and i never met him but i do see his situation. Some of you are making statements like "how do you sleep at night". What's wrong with you people? Can't you get it into your brain that he uses sponsor provided content??? So infact you are saying that those sponsors like Alex & Jason, Fuck You Cash and Braincash use CP and passed that content on to Slick to use on his site(s)? Why are you all waiting in line to smash down a fellow webmaster? I don't get it, i really don't. Maybe it is about time we got a reaction from the sponsors who provided the content in the first place....... Should we start flaming at every webmaster with teen content on his site now? No we shouldn't! Fuck this, it dissapoints me how fellow webmaster stand in line to jump the saga waggon to fuck another webmaster. I myself don't do teen, not because it worries me, just because it's not my thing. IF infact the content appears to be CP then they should put all who used it and provided it in the same room and set the building on fire, i agree. BUT shouldn't we wait it out BEFORE we start pointing a finger? Remember, if you are pointing your finger to someone, three fingers are still pointing towards yourself! Put yourself in his shoes....... this ISN'T the situation you want to find yourself in when you wake up. Just calm down on Slick's ass, get of his back already.

12-15-2006, 03:32 AM	#399
FunkyDog Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 541	400............