DirectNic Demands SlicksNetwork.com Hand Over Model IDs

[softball]

Originally Posted by tony404

Internet policing ? its called a industry regulating itself or the government starts regulating for you. Imagine if everyone policed cp on line instead of waiting for the police. If you got proof everyone is of age ,you really got nothing to worry about.There would be no safe place for cp to happen in the internet world. oh I forgot in the online world its everyone's god given right to do whatever the fuck they want until they are arrested.
Then they cry why do they pick on us. lol

Not everyone is legally able to give out that information unless it is to the proper legal authorities. So what do you do then

[Hammer]

It's not DN's job to 'police' anything and since when is DirectNic part of this industry that you think should be policing itself? This isn't a case of policing ourselves, this is a case of an outside source policing us and doing it illegally.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Hammer

It's not DN's job to 'police' anything and since when is DirectNic part of this industry that you think should be policing itself? This isn't a case of policing ourselves, this is a case of an outside source policing us and doing it illegally.

Hammer, I propose to you the same bet I proposed with rhetorical http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showthread.php?t=51383

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Hammer, I propose to you the same bet I proposed with rhetorical http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showthread.php?t=51383

It'll be a shame to see you go.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Hammer

It'll be a shame to see you go.

I take it that that is an aceptance

Originally Posted by Hammer

We are constantly fighting for our constitutrional rights in this business and along comes an organization that tramples all over them

Last I checked, your constitutional rights end right at my doorstep.

[softball]

Last I checked, your constitutional rights end right at my doorstep.

Not being a constitutional expert, I would guess you are very wrong on that count. You might think about checking again.

[Hammer]

I take it that that is an aceptance

Sure, why not. Oprano won't miss either of us.

Last I checked, your constitutional rights end right at my doorstep.

huh? I'm guessing you mean if I come into your house you have the right to do illegal things to me because I no longer have any rights? So you could rape me and it would be okay. Or you could rob me or kill me? Since none of those are true, just what constitutional rights end at your doorstep? You can't even shoot me unless your life is threatened and even then a good attorney could get you convicted of murder.

But, what does any of that have to do with the current argument that what DirectNic did is unconstitutional?

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Sure, why not. Oprano won't miss either of us.

huh? I'm guessing you mean if I come into your house you have the right to do illegal things to me because I no longer have any rights? So you could rape me and it would be okay. Or you could rob me or kill me? Since none of those are true, just what constitutional rights end at your doorstep? You can't even shoot me unless your life is threatened and even then a good attorney could get you convicted of murder.

But, what does any of that have to do with the current argument that what DirectNic did is unconstitutional?

lolol...You are confused. You are listing things that are against the law not things that are your constitutional right.

Let's see now.


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Your right to free speech ends at my doorstep as I can have you arrested for walking into my house and abusing me verbally. Your right to exercise your religion ends at my doorstep, again, you come in and throw down some prayer mats and start praying and if I call the cops, you will be at least escorted from my house if not arrested. Yor right to assemble ends at my doorstep, go ahead get a few people to assemble in my living room uninvited and the cops will again remove you for me.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You bring a weapon into my house and again, the cops will help me out, not you. In fact, in Florida if you bring a weapon into my house I can shoot your ass.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Unless of course I put the condition that you are subject to search and seizure upon entering my doorstep. In fact, if you bring personal articles into my house and I grab them and search them you would have absolutely no legal recourse.


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


You can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself but if you tell me something in confidence and I take it to the authorities, it not only can be used against you but as Joe Friday would say, it WILL be used against you so you have incriminated yourself even though you have the right not to.

(Favorite Ron White line: I had the right to remain silent, unfortunately......I didn't have the ability)

What this has to do with the directnic thing is that they are a private company, they created terms and conditions for a contract with them and those terms and conditions were agreed to. Unless a court of law says that those terms and conditions are not enforceable then those terms and conditions stand. Since no court has made such a detemination then for right now that contract must be considered valid. In fact, the lack of action by Slick and his layer to get an injunction against directnic not allowing them to enforce their contract would indicate to me that his lawyer is thinking that the contract is enforceable.

If the contract were so blatantly unenforceable as everyone is saying, so blatantly unconstitutional as all the gfy lawyers say, it would take about $300 and half a day to get in front of a federal judge to get an injunction prohibiting directnic from taking the actions they did. And yes, it would be federal because slick and directnic are not in the same state and it is therefore related to interstate commerce which is completely the feds purview.

When Slick agreed to directnic's terms and conditions, he set foot inside of their doorstep and as I said, the constitution ends at my doorstep (in this case directnic's doorstep).

This is not free speech case. This is a contract case, pure and simple.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Sure, why not. Oprano won't miss either of us.

Well, I really don't have the dislike for you that I do for rhetorical so how's bout we make it a monetary bet instead. I can go to $100. I'm not rich so I am not willing to gamble $1000 like the bigwigs are...lol... But make it wherever you feel comfortable between $1 and $100 (or a couple of drinks at a show) and I would be just as ageeable.

Either way works for me

[Hammer]

It blows my mind when I see people supporting what DN is doing considering the industry we're in. We are constantly fighting for our constitutrional rights in this business and along comes an organization that tramples all over them and instead of getting pissed off, some of you are actually condoning their actions. Unbelievable.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hammer

It blows my mind when I see people supporting what DN is doing considering the industry we're in. We are constantly fighting for our constitutrional rights in this business and along comes an organization that tramples all over them and instead of getting pissed off, some of you are actually condoning their actions. Unbelievable.

I have seen some, but very little support out there. But when shit like this happens there are always a few. I would assume that after this Directnic will be out of the adult reg business by the sound of it. But that could be the plan.

[tony404]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Not everyone is legally able to give out that information unless it is to the proper legal authorities. So what do you do then

to prove age a blacked out picture id with only pic and birthdate showing. Your giving no personal info away.

[softball]

Originally Posted by tony404

to prove age a blacked out picture id with only pic and birthdate showing. Your giving no personal info away.

I would have to consult a lawyer on that, but I would bet that would be illegal as well.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I would have to consult a lawyer on that, but I would bet that would be illegal as well.

Hmmmm. So all the sites that set up profiles of girls with their pic and dob in their profile are breaking the law? Many of them are getting that info from their sponsors, so I guess the sponsors are breaking the law too? I have many model releases from content providers and such and I don't have any that have the model's permission to post that stuff on line. I guess all the gossip sites that have celebrity birthdays and pics on them and sites like imdb that have the date of birth and death and a bio are all in violation of the law as you see it.

Damn, you are such a constitutional genius rhetorical.

[softball]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Hmmmm. So all the sites that set up profiles of girls with their pic and dob in their profile are breaking the law? Many of them are getting that info from their sponsors, so I guess the sponsors are breaking the law too? I have many model releases from content providers and such and I don't have any that have the model's permission to post that stuff on line. I guess all the gossip sites that have celebrity birthdays and pics on them and sites like imdb that have the date of birth and death and a bio are all in violation of the law as you see it.

Damn, you are such a constitutional genius rhetorical.

And like I said, you are ignorant. I live in Canada and yes it is illegal. Now, go do a little research and cut and paste something. Duh, I hate to have to explain things that are patently obvious.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Hmmmm. So all the sites that set up profiles of girls with their pic and dob in their profile are breaking the law? Many of them are getting that info from their sponsors, so I guess the sponsors are breaking the law too? I have many model releases from content providers and such and I don't have any that have the model's permission to post that stuff on line. I guess all the gossip sites that have celebrity birthdays and pics on them and sites like imdb that have the date of birth and death and a bio are all in violation of the law as you see it.

Damn, you are such a constitutional genius rhetorical.

If the girls themselves are silly enough to share their ID, they are within their rights to do so. HOWEVER, if you are in Canada and you collect ID's, you CANNOT LEGALLY DISTRIBUTE THEM IN ANY WAY without permission or a release from the legal ID holder. This applies to content producers as well, not only does their model release have to incorporate a release for the content producer to keep the content on record, but there must be a sepereate part of the release allowing it to be distributed to neccessary parties (for 2257 purposes). Anyone other than a government agent, or someone who has through release been given permission to recieve the ID, or been handed it personally from the legal ID holder, CANNOT LEGALLY request that ID in Canada, and if someone were to provide it, they would be in Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and would be subject to jailtime in excess of 10+ years. If it was going cross-border, the fines/jailtime are even steeper, because it was Cross-border data flow of personal information that brought the laws into effect in the first place.

How do I know? My personal lawyer is one of the forefront experts of PIPA in Canada, and in fact he put together a legal seminar for a few years ago on just this subject and how it affect Canadian adult webmasters/content producers. Many major Canadian-based programs attended and I still have all the information, should you be interested.

Bottom line. If DirectNIC were to request the same information from a Canadian company and hold their domains in lock, said Canadian company would spend more time in jail/pay more fines than if they could somehow be extradited to the US and IF they were guilty, be charged under any kind of 2257 offenses. Canada is NOT the only country that has laws this strict, and I'm quite sure there are correlating US state laws that cover privacy/identify theft issues.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

If the girls themselves are silly enough to share their ID, they are within their rights to do so. HOWEVER, if you are in Canada and you collect ID's, you CANNOT LEGALLY DISTRIBUTE THEM IN ANY WAY without permission or a release from the legal ID holder. This applies to content producers as well, not only does their model release have to incorporate a release for the content producer to keep the content on record, but there must be a sepereate part of the release allowing it to be distributed to neccessary parties (for 2257 purposes). Anyone other than a government agent, or someone who has through release been given permission to recieve the ID, or been handed it personally from the legal ID holder, CANNOT LEGALLY request that ID in Canada, and if someone were to provide it, they would be in Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and would be subject to jailtime in excess of 10+ years. If it was going cross-border, the fines/jailtime are even steeper, because it was Cross-border data flow of personal information that brought the laws into effect in the first place.

How do I know? My personal lawyer is one of the forefront experts of PIPA in Canada, and in fact he put together a legal seminar for a few years ago on just this subject and how it affect Canadian adult webmasters/content producers. Many major Canadian-based programs attended and I still have all the information, should you be interested.

Bottom line. If DirectNIC were to request the same information from a Canadian company and hold their domains in lock, said Canadian company would spend more time in jail/pay more fines than if they could somehow be extradited to the US and IF they were guilty, be charged under any kind of 2257 offenses. Canada is NOT the only country that has laws this strict, and I'm quite sure there are correlating US state laws that cover privacy/identify theft issues.

So, the whois databases aren't allowed to list canadian names and addresses?

[softball]

Originally Posted by sarettah

So, the whois databases aren't allowed to list canadian names and addresses?

That is stretching the argument to the extreme. Not a lot of model's nor employees addresses on who is lists.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by sarettah

So, the whois databases aren't allowed to list canadian names and addresses?

Read what I wrote again then perhaps revisit this statement. I made it pretty clear.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

Bottom line. If DirectNIC were to request the same information from a Canadian company and hold their domains in lock, said Canadian company would spend more time in jail/pay more fines than if they could somehow be extradited to the US and IF they were guilty, be charged under any kind of 2257 offenses. Canada is NOT the only country that has laws this strict, and I'm quite sure there are correlating US state laws that cover privacy/identify theft issues.

Which is probably why DirectNic wouldn't ask for illegal information from a Canadian company.

I personally don't see how ANYONE can correlate identity theft with a picture and birthdate. I can send you a copy of my driver's license with nothing showing but my picture and birthdate and I highly doubt you'd be able to steal my identity - or even know my real name.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by Peaches

Which is probably why DirectNic wouldn't ask for illegal information from a Canadian company.

I personally don't see how ANYONE can correlate identity theft with a picture and birthdate. I can send you a copy of my driver's license with nothing showing but my picture and birthdate and I highly doubt you'd be able to steal my identity - or even know my real name.

So if DirectNIC were to sieze the domains of someone under privacy laws, that person would then just be screwed, right? They could be basically blackmailed with no way out. Sounds like a great precident to set.