This whole directnic locking down a domain thing

[Jim]

Unless you have been hiding under a rock for the past few days, you know that directnic has locked and shut down a site that may or maynot have cp links and/or images.

If not, here is the short version. Directnic received a complaint about a site with cp. They investigated, locked the domain and wrote the owner asking for content ids. When the person didn't comply, they shut down the domain. And, it can't be moved to another registrar.

What they wanted was an clear government issued id with only the picture and birth date showing.

The FSC claims that Directnic was wrong in doing this
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F....asp?coid=1014

But, if you read the Directnic terms of service, you will clearly see that by entering into an agreement with them, you agree to allow them to do this. They actually had the right to just lock the domain and shut down the site without giving the person the opportunity to clear his name and domain. But, they gave him a chance anyway.

It seems at a board with a lot of posts but few webmasters, a lot of people think directnic was wrong. And many predict the downfall of directnic.

For myself, I think directnic did the right thing and was and will remain to be a stand up company. I am very happy having my domains hosted there and have no thoughts of moving.

This was one site where the person running it himself claims, "If there was cp, I didn't know about it".

What do you think?

[Toby]

Whether legally right or wrong, this is a slippery slope I don't think DirectNic fully thought through before taking action.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm not so sure that DirectNic can legally request third party identification, even if it says they can in their TOS. What if the webmaster resides in Canada where he'd be violating Canadian privacy laws by giving out that information?

I think justice would have been better served if DirectNic had simply passed the CP report along to proper authorities.

[Jim]

I think they were giving the guy the opportunity to clear his name. Legally, they could have locked and shut down the domain until authorities could look it over.

[eman]

About a year ago I transferred my "main" sites to directnic.

Even though DN were more expensive. I thought my sites were "safer" there.

That's no longer the case. I'm transferring them back to godaddy.

"Safe" doesn't amount to "arbitrary"

I've got nothing to hide but I refuse to support an organisation that is clearly shitting its pants.

[Jim]

Oh yeah, he wasn't Canadian. So, who knows what they would have done if he were? They didn't just shoot from the hip. They looked it over before doing anything.

[ponygirl]

from what I understand, it was a teen TGP that used thumbs linked to sponsor galleries. Some of the galleries looked questionable, but they are all from reputable sponsors. Whether or not the sponsor would give out the ID info is another question. They asked for a certain # of docs and gave a deadline, then shut down the sites before the end of the deadline, which makes me wonder if it may be out of their hands now.

The other thing that came to light was that a few of his link trades were walking some very fine lines, if not totally crossing them. Whether or not he knew that, he claims he didn't and has removed them.

Although I don't think DirectNic has the authority to request documents, I would hope they had legal counsel before doing all this. I also think there is more to it than we know.

an interesting situation for sure, which could definitely impact all of us.

[emmanuelle]

You cannot blame anyone for doing what they feel is in the best interest of their company, especially when it's in their tos. I'm too lazy to look, but I suspect that most registrars have similar policies. Keep in mind that none of us actually own our domains.

I don't think that anyone in mainstream is going to rule against them, it's one of those 'save the children' issues.

Isn't Mike AI one of the owners of DirectNic? Maybe someone can get him to visit this thread and comment.

[MrYum]

All my domains are with DirectNic and won't be going anywhere else...certainly not for this event.

I did see the site in question and even though the content was probably legal (it was from known sponsors), the way it was presented was beyond questionable. And several of the trade links ended up being shut down by the Danish govt for CP. Frankly, this guy was really pushing the envelope big time...it's not a surprise that it caught someone's attention.

As to the privacy issue, DN requested redacted IDs that only showed photo and DOB. Which frankly probably wouldn't have proven much, given that the images could have been produced at any time.

However, DN ended up shutting everything down early, which happened to be about the same time that the Danish authorities started shutting down the trades. Related? Probably...

I won't even get onto my rant about folks that push the boundaries, by making legal girls look much MUCH less than legal...then promoting them as such. This "do anything for a buck" mentality makes us all look like worse than the pond scum the religious right already thinks we are

[Greenguy]

As soon as I heard about it, the 1st thought that went thru my head was that Directnic is not just any registrar - it's one that's owned by people that have been in the porn industry for a long time (meaning that it wasn't a knee jerk reaction from a mainstream registrar)

If they got a complaint, they almost have to do something - locking the domain & contacting the webmaster was the right thing to do. If the webmaster can't (or refuses to) provide them with legit docs, then I see no problem with Directnic's actions.

[juggernaut]

I have been under a rock for the past few days. I take it the guy was hosting on their servers? I use thier name registration but host elsewhere. If he was using their paid hosting then he is a dumbass. Anyone who is in the adult industry who uses their hosting is a dumbass.

Section 25 subsection G. "You hereby agree that all domain names and any material submitted for publication on our System through your account will not contain anything that represents abuse of our Services or System. Abuse includes, but is not limited to using our Services or System to promote pornography, obscenity, nudity, violations of privacy, computer viruses, hacking, wares, or any other harassing or harmful materials or uses. You hereby agree to indemnify and hold us harmless from any claims resulting from your publication of materials or use of those materials. Furthermore, we may at our sole discretion deactivate your accounts, with our without notice, if we determine that you have engaged in abusive of our Services or System. "

Now if he was just using the name registration and hosting someplace else then I think he has a case. I cannot find anything in the TOS in using their domain name registration service that covers anything you put on your website. They seem to distance themselves very well from your site/company in that section. In fact there is another section that states they are in no way responsible for anything, links or otherwise you put on your site that are hosted by someone else. But it is a large TOS and they may have other sections that affect parts of the TOS but can't seem to find any. Jim you have that link for this story? I looked on xbiz but their site seems to be bringing up news stories on black pages that are hard as hell to read.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Greenie

If the webmaster can't (or refuses to) provide them with legit docs, then I see no problem with Directnic's actions.

It appears that most if not all of the content in question is from sponsor hosted galleries, shouldn't links to the 2257 statements from said sponsors be sufficient?

No question this guy was over line in how he was promoting this stuff, but what about the next one that's not so cut & dry? Where do we draw that line? And WHO decides where that line is? I'm certainly not comfortable with my domain registar making those decisions.

[emmanuelle]

Originally Posted by Toby

I'm certainly not comfortable with my domain registar making those decisions.

Much like in the case of copyright infringement, would not those along the chain also be considered contributory in the case of cp?
That alone is incentive for anyone to remove themselves from the situation

[Simon IA Cash]

Originally Posted by Toby

No question this guy was over line in how he was promoting this stuff, but what about the next one that's not so cut & dry? Where do we draw that line? And WHO decides where that line is? I'm certainly not comfortable with my domain registar making those decisions.

He was using FHGs and figured he was in ok shape. He was actually starting the get that 2257 info after they gave him his warning and deadline and locked his sites. Then, before that deadline, they shut them down. I'm not sure I agree with that.

That being said, I'm not a fan of the making-them-look-as-young-as-possible approach, and I don't really mind it maybe shaking some webmasters up into getting those thumbs away. They're really (besides menstruation porn) the only ones that make me cringe.

But I do worry about where the line is drawn like you do, and about what precedents are set. DirectNIC's TOS are probably the same as everyone else's, but that doesn't mean they handled this fairly. They've had the sites running for a long time, and then they get a complaint and shut down the sites in the way they did, asking for current model IDs and not even mentioning 2257? Seems a bit unprofessional to me. Kinda harsh to really mess up the livelihood of someone who was using FHGs that were seemingly 2257 compliant, with an autocropper.

[urb]

I have domains with DirectNic and I will not be moving any of them.

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Simon IA Cash

He was using FHGs and figured he was in ok shape. He was actually starting the get that 2257 info after they gave him his warning and deadline and locked his sites. Then, before that deadline, they shut them down. I'm not sure I agree with that.

That being said, I'm not a fan of the making-them-look-as-young-as-possible approach, and I don't really mind it maybe shaking some webmasters up into getting those thumbs away. They're really (besides menstruation porn) the only ones that make me cringe.

But I do worry about where the line is drawn like you do, and about what precedents are set. DirectNIC's TOS are probably the same as everyone else's, but that doesn't mean they handled this fairly. They've had the sites running for a long time, and then they get a complaint and shut down the sites in the way they did, asking for current model IDs and not even mentioning 2257? Seems a bit unprofessional to me. Kinda harsh to really mess up the livelihood of someone who was using FHGs that were seemingly 2257 compliant, with an autocropper.

A few different thoughts:
1) Where's their badge, where's their warrant!
- According to FSC chairman Jeffrey Douglas, the request is illegal! Under federal law they have no right to these documents
2) Shooting yourself in the foot!
- They are immune from policing content under the law, but now by doing so they have created liability(not immune). DirectNIC is lawlessly intruding into their business.
3) Sponsor FHGs!
- Many sponsors now only provide FHGs, rather than free content, so that they do not need to pass along the 2257 info to WMs. Now if DN were to go and shut down Google images, which I am pretty sure you can find some actual CP I might be more inclined to go with alongit.

[ponygirl]

they (DN) apparently received a complaint - was the complaint about some of the thumbs on the tgp (which admittedly looked borderline) or was it about the links? Apparently some of those links were pretty bad I know they asked for info for the thumbs, but it's funny how once the links were mentioned he got shut down pretty quickly.

this is why it's hard to decide who's right/wrong - we don't know exactly what started it all and what's going on behind closed doors. Looking at the source for most of this info I'm taking it with a grain of salt until something official comes out.

[Useless]

Let me get this right:
U.S. Department of Justice wanting secondary producers to have documents = BAD.
Domain registrar with no legal authority demanding model documents = OK.

I'm not defending the schmuck whose TGP got shut down, but this topic isn't that simple.

[juggernaut]

Ok read the FSC site which before I did not want to read a ton of legal stuff just after waking up. I think DN is in some serious trouble here. They were not hosting the site. According to them it's ok for them to shut down your domain with just a received complaint. I would presume most WM here are doing the same as me. Buying the names from them and hosting them elsewhere. If that's the case then any letter of complaint to them about your site, might leed them to shut you down. They have no legal grounds to stand on.

“In most cases when there is a confirmed report of child porn, directNIC takes immediate action and shuts down the domain names because it is blatantly obvious that the customer is offering child porn,” Nance told XBIZ. “However, not every case is clear cut. The letter was intended to notify the customer of the potential issue that was reported to directNIC. This does not mean that the domains contain child porn; it only means that an investigation was commenced — i.e., we want to make sure that we do not facilitate the trading of child porn online.”

Now I can understand their wanting to help prevent the spread of CP. But they state themselves that an investigation was commenced and that they did not find CP. If they found it then surly DN would be touting a differant horn on how they helped take down a CP site. But their TOS clearly states they are not responsible for stuf hosted elsewhere. I honestly think the company screwed itself here. Even more so if the guy gets the documents and not one person has bad ID. They are a domain naming service and do nothing but place a pointer record on your domain name. Will they be around after this? Sure. Will they most likly settle in court? I would get this out of the public eye ASAP.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

Much like in the case of copyright infringement, would not those along the chain also be considered contributory in the case of cp?
That alone is incentive for anyone to remove themselves from the situation

In the case of Copyright infringement there is a specific statute in place, namely the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and it only passes liability to the web host upon notice, not on up the chain to registrar. There is no such statute that I'm aware of that mentions anything about culpability for domain registrars.

I don't understand why this was even reported to DirectNic. Why wasn't it reported to the web host? There's more going on here than is being stated publicly.

[GonZo]

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

You cannot blame anyone for doing what they feel is in the best interest of their company, especially when it's in their tos. I'm too lazy to look, but I suspect that most registrars have similar policies. Keep in mind that none of us actually own our domains.

I don't think that anyone in mainstream is going to rule against them, it's one of those 'save the children' issues.

Isn't Mike AI one of the owners of DirectNic? Maybe someone can get him to visit this thread and comment.

Mike AI has commented on it at the Zoo and I think hes said all he can at this point.

Its also a HOT thread on Oprano with a few cockholsters trying to pull in issues of spyware.

What I find interesting in all of this is no one has named the sponsors.

Feel free to post them on Oprano if anyone knows. I will risk the loss of advertising revenue to make others aware of potential issues using their content.

[urb]

Even if DirectNic have made a mistake... I ain't gonna stop using a company because of one incident where they were trying to be the good guys.

[GonZo]

Originally Posted by urb

Even if DirectNic have made a mistake... I ain't gonna stop using a company because of one incident where they were trying to be the good guys.

Im amused at all the people proclaiming they are running to Godaddy when its well known that Bob Parsons hates this industry.

[GonZo]

Google has delisted slicknetworks.com and all sites??
A "surfer" just posted this on Oprano
Can anyone cofirm this?
http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showt...826#post750826

[Jim]

Originally Posted by GonZo

Im amused at all the people proclaiming they are running to Godaddy when its well known that Bob Parsons hates this industry.

Just searching this board alone, you will find quite a few people that have had their domain stolen using godaddy. If someone has the undue need to leave directnic, for the love of god, don't use godaddy.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by GonZo

Google has delisted slicknetworks.com and all sites??
A "surfer" just posted this on Oprano
Can anyone cofirm this?
http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showt...826#post750826

Gonzo, that post doesn't look like it is from any surfer. It looks like it was posted by a webmaster with an agenda.