This whole directnic locking down a domain thing

[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

[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.

[Jel]

Originally Posted by Toby

...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.

They *possibly* did, but may not have gotten far;

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.ADVANCEDHOSTERS.COM 207.226.173.67
NS2.ADVANCEDHOSTERS.COM 69.31.128.2

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Jel

They *possibly* did, but may not have gotten far;

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.ADVANCEDHOSTERS.COM 207.226.173.67
NS2.ADVANCEDHOSTERS.COM 69.31.128.2

Ahhhh, dasvidanya komrad.

[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.

[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.

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

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.

Maybe it's the DOJs way of backdooring the 2257 injunction by applying a little pressure on government regulated companies, or an example of forced government regulating similar to the thread here about illegal images.
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=36809

I guess the bottom line is how far companies without the legal authority can be allowed use business relationships to interfer with porn that the DOJ can't.
Banks vs ARS & Vivid
DN vs Slick

[ladydesigner]

I hadn't heard about this until just now when I came across this thread. Without knowing all the details, I'm just gonna say that all my domains are (and have been for many years) registered with Directnic. If they (DN) where trying to step up and take care of a reported cp site, then good for them! My sites will stay where they are.

[spazlabz]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

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.

I tried, but found that I could not possibly agree with you more


spaz