Well DirectNic Shut Me Down - Page 13 - GoFuckYourself.com

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

600 posts later...

"Spoken like a true prodigy..."
but,,,
sorry, I beat you to it
;)

"The OLDER school"
;)

nick3131 · 12-15-2006, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winetalk

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"?????

haha i doubt he gives a fuck about a cd player

getting his domains back would be nice thou

unfortunatly for him these investigations take forever

will76 · 12-15-2006, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunkyDog

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.

I'll say it for the millionith time, and i don't think i can put it any more clearer. YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID IF YOU TAKE PICTURES OF GIRLS THAT LOOK 12 - 17 YEARS OLD AND PUT THOSE PICTURES ON YOUR SITE UNLESS YOU HAVE AGE DOCS IN YOUR HAND TO SHOW PROOF OF THEIR AGE. I DON'T CARE IF YOU GET THE CONTENT FROM YOUR MOM, BEST FRIEND, OR A SPONSOR ONLINE.

but hey, all of you are welcome to do it. Just don't be surprised when the police knock on your door and ask for age docs on the models because they received a CP complaint. Then you better hope and prey that the people you got the images from did everything 100% correct, that EVERY image has documention, that there are NO mistakes. Say some paperwork is lost on one of the girls who look 13. Then they have no proof of her age, it goes to court and a jury decides the girls age from looking at the images.

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

Peaches · 12-15-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Come on, that was funny, admit it.

Man hug? :D

*I* thought it was funny, if that's any consolation. My boobs are too big for a manhug though

Peaches · 12-15-2006, 01:50 PM

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

FetishTom · 12-15-2006, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

Which of course makes it perfectly ok then.

Just to recap

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

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

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

Its a strange fucking world.

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

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

I wonder 2 things on that...

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

and

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

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

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

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

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

I knew you would.

And I'd still like to try the man-hug on you one day, big boobs and all. :D

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Which of course makes it perfectly ok then.

Just to recap

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

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

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

Its a strange fucking world.

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

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

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

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

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

Jace · 12-15-2006, 02:29 PM

posted on another board

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnotherGrogan

Hello folks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 02:36 PM

hahaha,
fake!

Quote:

This whole thing sickens me and that domain registrar can burn in Hell. I'll certainly never use or recommend them.

surfer using registar?????

HOW stupid one can get!? please don't answer.

Anthony · 12-15-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jace

posted on another board

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

sicone · 12-15-2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

I wonder 2 things on that...

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

and

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

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

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

I have been wondering that myself. Good the here Pussycash is ready to help if need be.

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony

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

I reg'd Luke Ford monicker on Oprano myself. I never gave Luke the access.
Gonzo learned thsi trick from me
;)

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 03:00 PM

Jace, that whole thing has got to be the most obvious fake I have ever run across. It is written from a very specific point of view, intented to create the appearance of "public" cover for this shit.

Very, very few surfers understand that delimitations of websites, very few understand where one stop and and another starts, and very few even understand what a domain name really is. Proof: How many people get fucked over on phishing scams every day.

I am sure that the person who wrote it feels very deeply about it, and I am sure that he is concerned that what Directnic did could directly impact his business. It's a nice try

Peaches · 12-15-2006, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Which of course makes it perfectly ok then.

Just to recap

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

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

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

Its a strange fucking world.

It's my understanding that Google has removed at least one of Slick's sites.

Pleasurepays · 12-15-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

I wonder 2 things on that...

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

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

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

Thumbler · 12-15-2006, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

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

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

pornonada · 12-15-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pleasurepays · 12-15-2006, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slick

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

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

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

spacedog · 12-15-2006, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

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

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

ffucking soda come out off my nose.. thanks

Jace · 12-15-2006, 04:04 PM

the more I read that "fake" letter the more I realize how fake it is...LOL...oh well, at least it was more interesting to read than this thread

you all have got to come up with something else abotu this issue to argue about, this thread is like a broken record

Jace · 12-15-2006, 04:05 PM

Slick, as much as I hate saying it

when you went to hire an attorney, you really should have called one of the well known industry veteran lawyers that LOVES the press...

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornonada

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

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

Search engines sort of operate in a wierd null land right now. They have legal backing to use small thumbnails without violating copyright, and so far, nobody has been able to push them on links to illegal material. Like an ISP, hosting company, or (eeek!) registrar, they act on reported. The good old "innocent until proven guilty" and good faith moves when notified.

The scale of a google or a yahoo pretty much precludes checking every link. Plus, the reality is that CP is probably a very, very low percentage of the total pages and images linked, like a rounding error level.

When I checked Slick's sites (particularly the ones with more "interesing" names like "horny teddy"), I found CP and questionable material on almost every click. It wasn't an oversight, it wasn't 1% of the links... everywhere I turned I was quickly arriving at very, very bad stuff. It wasn't a rogue trade or anything like that.

The other part is the thumbs on the site. Most of them wre cropped specifically to imply either extreme youth (tiny, petite, hairless) or fear (unhappy looking girls, suggestion of dominance). Those are both very strong themes of CP. So combine the images with the links, and well... it would be very easy for a member of the general public to get the wrong idea. Apparently someone did, and apparently the Danish authorities took exception to some of his link trade partners too.

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

Webby · 12-15-2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

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.

Don't assume anything KK.

LOVE · 12-15-2006, 04:14 PM

Slick good luck!

Webby · 12-15-2006, 04:15 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."

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.

Think you summed that up pretty well CDS

And the first and last para is particularly revent.

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

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

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

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

Also, and this has been much talked about this before, but since it is in some cases difficult for affiliates to be supplied with all the necessary documentation on each and every pic and video they use from their sponsor-provided content, people want to know what the hell they should do. AND, many affiliates aren't in the US, and 2257 is after all a US LAW.

So I really don't care if the law says nothing about "trusting anyone", the fact is there are plenty of affiliates who are doing just that, so let's try addressing that instead of just stating what's obvious.

"Get the docs or don't promote the sponsor" is perhaps your answer. Well, maybe someone needs to compile a list of sponsors that affiliates can be assured they will get everything they need to legally promote them?

just a punk · 12-15-2006, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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).

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

Pleasurepays · 12-15-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

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

it seems from remarks and comments that very few remember that the new law requires a TGP owner to have docs for every single thumbnail if the uncropped image falls under the governments requirements.

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

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

whats the solution? thats an easy question to answer - don't break the law.

people are worried about DirectNIC... what about Slick? he probably driving the final nails in his own coffin with his comments and can't stop to understand that he is probably in the center of a government investigation thats going to end badly for him because he was always breaking the law.

Pleasurepays · 12-15-2006, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

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

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

FetishTom · 12-15-2006, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

Intent (or lack of it) is a redundant argument. Google's intent (as is Slicks) is to make money by giving the customer what they are looking for. One party is seemingly exempt from any liability or censure and the other is not, something which strikes me as a bit one sided.

If Google can claim 'innocence' by the nature of their operation then why not a webmaster who puts his whole operation on automatic?

Equally I do not see how else Google or other SE's can operate as making them responsible for the content they link too would make the system unworkable. Or is it simply that one party does not make a living exclusively out of porn (good) whereas the other does (bad). This despite the fact that the porn income or traffic generated by the former far exceeds the small porn webmaster sitting in his study. As I said its a funny old world.

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

BVF · 12-15-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thumbler

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

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

Dotster??????

just a punk · 12-15-2006, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

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

A quote from 2257 please.

Thumbler · 12-15-2006, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

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

Funny, the thought crossed my mind that if she had been one of the thumbs on one of Slick's sites the thread would have been full of 'she looks really young'.......................

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 04:54 PM

Tom. for whatever reasons, SEs have always come up on the good when this gets pushed to the legal side.

It's life, and their situation doesn't aid Slick in the slightest.

(however, with enough posts in this thread, Slick will get the prize this month, I guess).

Thumbler · 12-15-2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVF

Dotster??????

Funnily enough - no

Pleasurepays · 12-15-2006, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

A quote from 2257 please.

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

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

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

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

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

I just posted the images of me sucking my own cock on this baord...

2 questions:

1) you think they gonna be in trouble?

2) do I need to hire bonafide chiropractor? My back hurts.....

pornonada · 12-15-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

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

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

out of curiousity, do you think it would have been different if he wasn't US, but Swedish or Dutch for example?

@RawAlex, do you mind to continue to reply to the other Post i made here and the French Registar that gives you full ownership/property for the domain? I would like to hear your opinion on this one.

just a punk · 12-15-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

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

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

No, no... I don't wanna dig for the board discussions bceause they DOES NOTHING in court. I need a quote from the LAW. Is that so hard to quote an official paper? Hmm...

Pleasurepays · 12-15-2006, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornonada

out of curiousity, do you think it would have been different if he wasn't US, but Swedish or Dutch for example?

since we don't know 100% of the facts, i wouldn't know. since i am not them and not a member of their legal team, i couldn't say what they would do.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that there isn't a lot more going on than people realize. if there isn't, i would extremely dissapointed. I would say that its quite safe to say that Slick (and most likely many others) are squarely in the center of a very serious government investigation

Pleasurepays · 12-15-2006, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

No, no... I don't wanna dig for the board discussions bceause they DOES NOTHING in court. I need a quote from the LAW. Is that so hard to quote an official paper? Hmm...

as i said... i am not your legal assistant. if you want answers.. find them. otherwise, i can bill you at 150.00 an hour and find them for you. i require 50% retainer in advance and will bill 5hrs minimum, should you choose to retain my services.

Pleasurepays · 12-15-2006, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winetalk

I just posted the images of me sucking my own cock on this baord...

2 questions:

1) you think they gonna be in trouble?

2) do I need to hire bonafide chiropractor? My back hurts.....

according to the logic of most... you can just ignore any and all law completely, push every possible boundary in an area of law which is gray at best, yet carries extremely serious consequences for crossing the line.. then wait until you get into serious trouble... plead ignorance and then just start calling people Nazi's and blame either Bush or the nearest Republican of your choice.

KCat · 12-15-2006, 06:26 PM

Slick - have you been able to get IDs from sponsors yet? The sites that are still up have a lot of questionable looking thumbs (to me) & I wouldn't leave this matter to just firing an email to a support address. Get at least a few IDs to DirectNic & maybe that will be enough to get your sites up & making money again so you can fund your lawyer.

With the current privacy laws I think it's insane for DirectNic to expect personal data to be handed out freely, but I certaintly wouldn't want to be in the position of arguing that point while my sites were locked down.

Good luck.

jscott · 12-15-2006, 07:10 PM

this is fucking sad!!!

Slick when your sites are back pls hit me up to reactivate trades

this is fucking bullshit

good luck Slick, i feel for you man, that is messed!!!!!!

will76 · 12-15-2006, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

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

.

Actually he does have a defense for not having the docs. If he is telling the truth that he is a FSC member then he would be protected under the injunction from being required to show docs on the sponsors content.

Being that he says he has an attorney and that doesn't seem like the case one can only wonder if he really is in the FSC as well.

The injunction does not make you immune from CP violations. So if he was visited by the police he *shouldn't* be in trouble for 2257 violations. However if all of the images could not be verified through his sponsors then he would be in a world of shit for CP violations.

will76 · 12-15-2006, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jscott

this is fucking sad!!!

Slick when your sites are back pls hit me up to reactivate trades

this is fucking bullshit

good luck Slick, i feel for you man, that is messed!!!!!!

Since you are in big support of him and do trade links with him i took a look at your site, out of curiosity.

The first one i noticed you do not use thumb images on your TGP. DO you do that because of the laws? or was that just done that way for other reasons.

I did notice your trades. Not picking on you because I am sure most "teen" TGPS have trade lists with similar names,

Little Girlies-teen site with lots of updates
Sexy Teens-beautiful young teen babes
Short Teen Skirts-cute & hot girls in short skirts
Your Dirty Mind-the best sex & erotic weblog
Classy Post-
Petite Teenager-sexy petite teen girls
Milkmans Teens-hot pics of amateurs & teens
Russian Schoolgirls-hottie russian college girls
Twisted Teens-your honest guide into erotica
Real Amateur Pics-hottest & cutest teens
Go Girls Go-pretty nude girls all over
Angels Links-awesome teen links & pics
Tight Virgins-hot tight virgin teens
Upskirt Cuties-upskirt picts of cute teens
Young Girl Galleries-25 new galleries every day!

Ok so most of them aren't that terrible. But a site named " Young Girl Galleries" who names their site that ? I find names like that disturbing especially when you go there and the models look 12, 13, 14 years old, etc.

Webby · 12-15-2006, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

The injunction does not make you immune from CP violations. So if he was visited by the police he *shouldn't* be in trouble for 2257 violations. However if all of the images could not be verified through his sponsors then he would be in a world of shit for CP violations.

Try this one Will...

Understand the request was for photo ID with a DOB etc. OK, failure there may be a 2257 offense.

To enter the realm of "CP" or child abuse, there needs to be evidence - hard fact evidence, ie.. not that this or that girl looks like 15 blah. If there is no question that the images are genuinely of kids, that's prob another matter for a prosecutor and, don't know that scenario, but prob easier to formulate charges.

If there is "vagueness" about age and it's a maybe, maybe not scenario, there is prob a need to get solid evidence and means a few channels of investigation to see where than leads. If a sponsor is foreign-based, there is no problem having that handled by the Virtual Global Taskforce or whatever liason is customary and having eg a law agency in France or the UK checking out a local sponsor etc. It would be pertinent under the laws of these countries where "CP" is illegal tho they would not be interested in enquiries under USC 2257 - the issue would be mainly whether the subject is of legal age.

Only my

- this is one crappy scenario to be in - either way. Tho, hell - really depends on what investigators see. There is a chance they may already know of the images (digital database stuff) and know the subject is not a child or, hell knows - could go either way, but it's not a comfortable position.

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCat

Slick - have you been able to get IDs from sponsors yet?

Slick is abscent today and for a good reason.

Slick learned the lesson that
"Silence is golden" and can do miracles,
the lesson EVERYBODY can take to the heart.

12-15-2006, 06:26 PM	#645
KCat Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: PNW Posts: 2,204	Slick - have you been able to get IDs from sponsors yet? The sites that are still up have a lot of questionable looking thumbs (to me) & I wouldn't leave this matter to just firing an email to a support address. Get at least a few IDs to DirectNic & maybe that will be enough to get your sites up & making money again so you can fund your lawyer. With the current privacy laws I think it's insane for DirectNic to expect personal data to be handed out freely, but I certaintly wouldn't want to be in the position of arguing that point while my sites were locked down. Good luck. __________________ ~ 300+ FHGs, 100,000 pics to use plus a rockin' Video of the Day download! ~

12-15-2006, 01:50 PM	#605
Peaches Old broad Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Away Posts: 13,933	And CD, I still love you even with the comments on JBM ;)

12-15-2006, 03:00 PM	#615
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Jace, that whole thing has got to be the most obvious fake I have ever run across. It is written from a very specific point of view, intented to create the appearance of "public" cover for this shit. Very, very few surfers understand that delimitations of websites, very few understand where one stop and and another starts, and very few even understand what a domain name really is. Proof: How many people get fucked over on phishing scams every day. I am sure that the person who wrote it feels very deeply about it, and I am sure that he is concerned that what Directnic did could directly impact his business. It's a nice try

12-15-2006, 04:04 PM	#622
Jace FBOP Class Of 2013 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: bumfuck, ky Posts: 35,562	the more I read that "fake" letter the more I realize how fake it is...LOL...oh well, at least it was more interesting to read than this thread you all have got to come up with something else abotu this issue to argue about, this thread is like a broken record

12-15-2006, 04:05 PM	#623
Jace FBOP Class Of 2013 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: bumfuck, ky Posts: 35,562	Slick, as much as I hate saying it when you went to hire an attorney, you really should have called one of the well known industry veteran lawyers that LOVES the press...

12-15-2006, 04:14 PM	#626
LOVE Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 322	Slick good luck!

12-15-2006, 04:54 PM	#636
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Tom. for whatever reasons, SEs have always come up on the good when this gets pushed to the legal side. It's life, and their situation doesn't aid Slick in the slightest. (however, with enough posts in this thread, Slick will get the prize this month, I guess).

12-15-2006, 07:10 PM	#646
jscott So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Taipei Posts: 25,198	this is fucking sad!!! Slick when your sites are back pls hit me up to reactivate trades this is fucking bullshit good luck Slick, i feel for you man, that is messed!!!!!!