Quote:
Originally Posted by spazlabz
We have two issues here;
Legal Ones (directnic should have done what they were supposed to)
Moral Ones (directnic should have left this the fuck alone)
I dont wish any ill will towards Mike AI or any of his companies really but in this case the owner of those sites should sue the fuck out of him and I would keep my fingers crossed that they would win.
spaz
|
From all accounts, several of these girls looked WAY below 18 - and not just "looked". DirectNic did exactly what they had the rights to do per thier TOS. Yes, they could have turned him directly over to the police and Slick would be coming up with bail and more than likely be a registered sex offender once everything came out in the wash. But instead they locked the domains (so if he WAS a CP trafficker, he couldn't move them and disappear) and contacted him and gave him time to clear his name.
SLICK took this to the boards, not DirectNic. Slick then gave 100's of webmasters the opportunity to point out that many of his thumbs/trades looked VERY, VERY underage. Now all that's going to be there, in writing, forever. Had he dealt with DirectNic directly, no one would have known anything.
From what I've read, Google has removed at least one of his sites. Now, are you going to boycott Google too? Did they overreach their bounds?
I've seen time and time again where it's state specific if you "own" the domain or not. Since DirectNic is loaded with lawyers and probably has more contact with legal jurisdictions that any of us will EVER have contact with, I'm going make a wild ass assumption that they were within their legal right to take down the sites in question.
If not, Slick can sue them - simple as that.