As wrong as I think DN is for playing 2257 inspector, I think Slick should just give them the 14 blacked out ids. If he doesn't and they turn this over to government authorities he is fucked. He obviously does not have 2257 docs and with the recent change in 2257 to basically make anyone who uploads a sexually explicit picture to the "series of tubes" a porn producer he will be in violation of 2257.

Do not kid yourself, there will be no "precedent set". This is GFY and while it is a pretty popular place I don't think that all the major registrars are hanging on every word of this "case". If this went to court and the case did not settle before a judgment then there would be a "legal precedent" set and that is the only thing that matters.

The major points to learn from all this are.

1. Have 2257 docs for all sexually explicit content you host.
-forget about DN what if the DOJ wanted to see the docs?

2. If you have "questionable content" on your site you are the 1st target and need to expect problems.
-Personally I stay away from anything teen related, but that is a moral decision (which has nothing to do with this) and because I just don't want to be on the front line when the nuts in the country decide to throw everyone related to porn in jail because they don't like it.

3. Everyone on GFY has an opinion and someone will always disagree with it - even mine.
-Think about what you would do if you were in Slicks situation. Would you want the heat on you if you knew that you didn't have the docs required by law
:2 cents:

Ok, read over the 3 pages of this thread, and maybe I missed it so I am going to bring this up.

*Someone* unknown to anyone but directnic makes a complaint of CP on slicks site(s). Directnic feels it necessary to lock up his domains until he provided 2257 docs to the company so they can examine them. Slicks lawyer then contacts them and they reply saying they only need the docs on the first 14 images.

Did I get that right? Ok, follow me here.

If you are *really* investigating a website/company/person for CP do you stop at 14 images? What if the 15th image is CP?

Since they are taking on the responsibility of determining there is no CP, why stop at 14 images? I assume that this person has a TGP script in place, with rotating galleries...so he has maybe 50,000 plus galleries? Why not insist that documentation is required to be sent to them for all 50,000 galleries? After all, the images that were on the page when the complaint was made are not the images on the page now because they rotate.

Why stop there though? Why not just make every sponsor hand over the ID's to every single model they have hosted galleries for?

Now I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if they have directnic has really thought about what they are getting themselves into. What if they do this to another guy, request the "first 14" and it ends up the site is full of CP except for those 14 thumbs. What happens when the guy is caught by the feds and find out that "directnic" had a complaint about CP, did not give the complaint to the authorities, but instead took it upon themselves to demand the documentation on a micro-fraction of the models to verify they were legal.

-OR-

directnic is given documentation on a model, accepts it as proof of age, and it turns out the model was NOT legal...that the id was fake. The FBI's have a means of looking up to see if docs are real, directnic doesn't

Honestly, if directnic wants to be a hero, heavily donation to organizations actively involved in the prevention of CP and the aprehension and conviction of those sicko's and report any sites they feel may contain CP.

There is a fine I believe for not reporting it, if they "investigate" a site, deem it "ok" and it ends up there WAS CP on it, then I believe directnic would be liable.

However, if they recieved a complaint, notified authorities and let those trained to handle such matters deal with it, then they are in the clear.

you can bet your ass this is going to become very standard. the power didn't show its force through the DOJ, it showed it through 'the registars'.

if this grows and more and more registrars demand photo ID on more and more thumb, this is going to turn into a huge clusterfuck with the registrar owning the domain in the end,

they are not conducting an inspection of records as described in 18 U.S.C. 2257 you dumbass. whether or not they are violating that law is not in question... they simply asked to see proof of age for 14 models.

fire your attorney... he sucks and if what you call deductive reasoning led you and your "attorney" to the conclusion that they are impersonating govenment officials, you need to wrap yourself in pillows, put a helmet on and never leave the house again to protect yourself and others.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

read the whole thread .... and all the threads.

Does anyone know if Directnic turned this complaint over to the fbi or were they willing to work with the webmaster first?

Here is what happened

Directnic got notified about some possible underage content domains they are the registar for. They had to due their due-diligence in order to feel comfortable that their client did not have something illegal on that domain. Somebody over there decided to lock the domain and send a poorly-worded notice to slick asking specifically for the 2257 information (which nobody but the attorney general has any right to ask for), when they should have asked for some sort of proof of age on the content, if slick could not provide it, they would 86 him from their system and maybe report him to the National Center, customs or the fbi, depending on his location. If he was willing and able to provide it, no big deal

Then he posted this and it was the Big Issue of the day on the boards and directnic realizes that all of their movements are going to be scrutinized in the public eye, so they are going to tread very carefully. They have no interest in losing any business over a decision by somebody that was probably a little overboard and are now looking to save face and quietly put this matter behind them.

ya, but processors are actually making it so a person can buy a membership on the site.

I was just thinking out loud so all of what I said may be completely wrong, but some of it may be right. Who knows.

I was just thinking out loud so obviously I wasn't stating a fact :) It could happen. Not right away, but later in the future anything is possible.

hey slick, I really would stop posting here till this is over and done with, can't believe your lawyer didn't advise this.

Best advice so far :thumbsup

Yeah, maybe you're right :)

trust me, I am.. stick to instant messengers like AIM/ICQ, everything you post here becomes public record and will fuck you in the end if you ever end up in court. You can always burn your Hardrive, but I doubt lensman will let you burn GFY ;)

gleem, IM is worse... because there are two copies (yours and theirs) plus you have no idea if the IM traffic is filtered in the middle.

You might as well stand in a large room and yell stuff to each other.

I'd give them what they want so you get to keep the domains. While you may be the guinea pig in what they are trying to do you have to protect your income first and foremost. Once you have done that you can decide whether or not to transfer the domains. In the mean time I'd give no hint to anyone as to what you intend to do as far as a registrar as it is not in your best interest at the moment.

As a member of GFY I thank you for sharing your troubles and the ongoing issues in this dilemma. I am sure it has shown a lot of us what we need to do in order to best protect ourselves.

Trust me I have read every word in every thread on this from the start of it, and you look just as foolish in all of them.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

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

Who are the best registers out there?

I wouldn't trust you , even with BoyAlley's dick ... you are an asshole.

suddenly i'm curious to know how you connected honesty and the cock of another man who is the most flamboyant homosexual to ever post on this forum.

did someone hurt you recently? feelings not returned? did he promise to call the next day and didn't?

weirdo.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

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

http://www.awrats.com/screenshot.jpg

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

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

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

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

No he doesn't, not by the law that is on the books and not held up by a injunction.

At this point in time he is a secondary producer and protected by Sundance vs Reno

That's actually not from a gallery of mine, if you look at the url in there, that's a link to a trade of mine. The strange thing is, when I go to that site, it loads up fine http://young-and-virgin.com/

Perhaps if Danish Police are seeing reason to put that message up there when you go to it, I should get rid of the trade, and I did just delete it.

hmmm, I guess I took off my tinfoil hat too soon.



seriously though the # of eyeballs looking at your IM's is less than the ones viewing a huge PUBLIC message board filled with Feds and other agencies taking notes.

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

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

we are a society of "victims" and this industry is no different Mutt.

Was he trading with CP sites? I don't know, I didn't see if he was or not, but if he was guess he's learning his lesson, if he was but didn't know it, now he knows why it's important to watch everything that you do with your sites.

injunction? ... do you live under a rock? can you explain the details of the injuction you are referring to and who it protects and how? apparently, i have everything backwards.

Sundance vs Reno... ummm... you lose. this was addressed by the DOJ in their comments and they said it will not stop them from coming after people and is not applicable. Believing it is or isn't is irrelevant if its not going to stop them from arresting you and destroying your business. He is a secondary producer by law and it is under that law that he can go to jail. End of story.

Rochard,

This was my point when asking Mike to clarify in his thread (to which he never replied).
It is *much* wider than the UK - the UK laws on privacy are taken directly from EU laws, which are that you cannot disclose this information to a 3rd party under any circumstance. Hell, even storing the data is a right royal pain in the arse; it's possible but the hoops you have to jump through to get permission is a nightmare.

DirectNic's lawyers sounds like pussies.

...next on the bandwagon: DNS providers

Just a visit to the GP complaining of stress and depression would sort that out. :2 cents:

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

i have about 300 registered with dotster

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

If they don't agree, i personally would riks to the let them shut down my sites and sue them. Having in mind your traffic it would be a for sure a several million law-suit having in mind all the future revenues you would have made. Could turn out even a good deal. Meanwhile build some other pages, in less than 1 year you are on the same level with the only difference that you are a millioner already :thumbsup :2 cents:

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

You think? I personally doubt it for several reasons, first of all it would mean that if they checked "only" 14 galleries it would automaticlly mean they have to reject all future complaints and not taking any actions, which is in totally dispute on what they declared already. Second, half+ webmaster community is fighting for you that you can move your domains away and staying with them would just be a farce. But ok, your sites and your decission of course. If you are happy how they are doing business, great :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

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

Good point!

People should know who they're doing business with. Ignorance isn't a defense :2 cents:

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

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

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

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