DirectNic Demands SlicksNetwork.com Hand Over Model IDs

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

You can try to muddy the waters with your speculation

Oh, I see how this works. The anti DN force is allowed to speculate all they want and assume that directnic did this out of the blue, on their own with no govenement inquiry starting he whole thing off, assume that none of the sponsors have privacy right clauses in their releases and assume that because Slick used sponsor content on a site that HE is PERSNALLY responsible for that the content was totally legal.

But if I make one speculation I am muddyng the waters?

You want in on the bet thread LM ?

[Peaches]

Looks like Experian can also ask for and receive a copy of your Georgia's driver's license.

OK, I've found at least THREE instances where it's legal to make a copy of a Georgia driver's license.

Batter up, Gonzo

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Peaches

Looks like Experian can also ask for and receive a copy of your Georgia's driver's license.

OK, I've found at least THREE instances where it's legal to make a copy of a Georgia driver's license.

Batter up, Gonzo

Ill look when Im done with work.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Ill look when Im done with work.

Cool - I'll get my paperwork ready to sue my lawyers with

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Peaches

Cool - I'll get my paperwork ready to sue my lawyers with

Get a lot of paper..

Every Govt agency I know of photocopies it as well.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Get a lot of paper..

Every Govt agency I know of photocopies it as well.

So the government, my attorneys and the credit bureaus are all breaking the law? Excellent. Class action suit.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by Peaches

So the government, my attorneys and the credit bureaus are all breaking the law? Excellent. Class action suit.

Laws on the books are very often outright ignored for practical purposes.

[Hammer]

Ah, I see the confusion. I said Spike but misspoke and meant to say Slick.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Oh, I see how this works. The anti DN force is allowed to speculate all they want and assume that directnic did this out of the blue, on their own with no govenement inquiry starting he whole thing off, assume that none of the sponsors have privacy right clauses in their releases and assume that because Slick used sponsor content on a site that HE is PERSNALLY responsible for that the content was totally legal.

But if I make one speculation I am muddyng the waters?

You want in on the bet thread LM ?

I'm not ANTI-Directnic.. I just don't feel that a registrar has the right to demand id's from someone. I do believe htey have the right to report him, to shut him down, to give him the opportunity to respond. But the way this entire thing was handled was very much a jumping of the gun in my PERSONAL opinion, and the results of this could be far-reaching. Don't tell me that if DirectNIC doesn't pull this off unscathed, other registrars won't be doing the same kinds of things, and who knows for what reasons? Maybe DirectNIC DOES have a good reason, but if so they better produce it damned quick, or it's going to be the beginning of a disturbing trend that could threaten ALL adult business.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

I'm not ANTI-Directnic.. I just don't feel that a registrar has the right to demand id's from someone. I do believe htey have the right to report him, to shut him down, to give him the opportunity to respond. But the way this entire thing was handled was very much a jumping of the gun in my PERSONAL opinion, and the results of this could be far-reaching. Don't tell me that if DirectNIC doesn't pull this off unscathed, other registrars won't be doing the same kinds of things, and who knows for what reasons? Maybe DirectNIC DOES have a good reason, but if so they better produce it damned quick, or it's going to be the beginning of a disturbing trend that could threaten ALL adult business.

I disagree only on the point that they don't have the right to do it. When the contract was signed, the right was given. Period. If you (universal you there) had a problem with the contract, either don't agree to it or take a case to court to prove the contract unenforceable thereby forcing the registrar to change the contract. A third option would be after the fact getting an injunction stopping the contact from being enforced until a judge can rule on the contracts legality.

None of these were done which in my mind says that the contract is considered enforceable by Slick's lawyer and makes all the discussion about whether DN has the right or not moot.

[tony404]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

I'm not ANTI-Directnic.. I just don't feel that a registrar has the right to demand id's from someone. I do believe htey have the right to report him, to shut him down, to give him the opportunity to respond. But the way this entire thing was handled was very much a jumping of the gun in my PERSONAL opinion, and the results of this could be far-reaching. Don't tell me that if DirectNIC doesn't pull this off unscathed, other registrars won't be doing the same kinds of things, and who knows for what reasons? Maybe DirectNIC DOES have a good reason, but if so they better produce it damned quick, or it's going to be the beginning of a disturbing trend that could threaten ALL adult business.

No waiting for the government to really start regulating us , could really threaten us. Im sorry but everything isnt ok , we as a industry have to say somethings cross the line or we will be very fucked.