The "Domains in Trust" Porn avoidance ploy

[NameBox]

In seeing dvdrips post in Legal Issues, it brings to mind those who would try to avoid legal liabilities or other concurrent publicity or responsibility resulting from the operation of gambling or pornography related websites.

Perhaps our esteemed attorney at large JBH can comment, but do members really think that the "domains in trust" ploy really works in "sheilding" them from responsiblity or avoiding the appearance of being the owners/operators of porn or gambling sites?

Who are you fooling after all? If you aren't the "real" owner or registrant then I suggest that the name be placed in the "true" registrants name. Otherwise, any legal (civil or criminal) liabilities would land straight at the proverbial door of the "registrant" who's only holding the name within the "in trust" department.

Pathetic ploy or misguided and naive, the results are the same. No one's, least of all the courts (legal or of public opinion) is going to buy the "in trust" argument IMO.

People may not "leap" to conclusions, but its something to think about ....

Cheers

 

[Fearless]

NameBox where have you been hiding buddy? There was some blood letting the last few days and I thought for sure you would be there for the kill. Fortunately I survived and have recovered 100%.

 

[NameBox]

Hey GregR,

I was blissfully unaware of the battles and general mayhem here on dnf over the last several weeks. Extended New Year's truce uniliaterally on my behalf.

I feel strongly, however, that the "domains in trust" issue sets a "dangerous" example! Best to be careful out there, before people start "leaping" to conclusions! I, for one, do not have any "faith" in this strategy.

However, NameBox, has never operated any porn sites (and wouldn't think of doing so in any event), so I highlight this issue as a public service.

Does anyone else have more "evidence" of this whois practice?

 

[GeorgeK]

You're pathetic, NameBox, in your innuendo.

 

[dtobias]

In Domains We Trust!

 

[Fearless]

Originally posted by NameBox


However, NameBox, has never operated any porn sites (and wouldn't think of doing so in any event),

The big question is. Have you ever operated any websites?

 

[HOWARD]

there is nothing illegal in owning and operating any adult or gambling site. It MAY be immoral in your way of thinking, but the purpose of putting these domains "in trust" has very little, if anything, to do with "the law".

 

[NameBox]

Originally posted by gregr



The big question is. Have you ever operated any websites?

GregR: But of course! Given the heat coming down of Texas porn site operators through Operation Ore, one would think that you would be suportive of the owernship of porn sites being transparent issue!

HOWARD: You said anything about "immoral". I didn't make any such judgements. Each porn site operator has to make this moral judgements (as you phrase them) on their own.

I understand that D.K. usually doesn't use the "in trust" ploy, and is quite transparent about his ownership and operation of his sites. This is commendable! Although, we have noticed a few registered offshore in FLA and CA. Other big time operators have everything registered offshore, in some offshore company registration agenst, or local lawyers name, with a "shingle" address in the Carib!

My point, which I believe has validity, is that by placing a "disclaimer" in the whois, one isn't necessarily fooling anyone. If the name is really held "in trust" wouldn't it be better to either place the "real" registrants particulars in place of the "domains in trust" proviso? One could always indicate the corporate entity holding the domain, with the "trustee" as an alternate contact.

GeorgeK: Whatever do you mean? Care to explain and enlighten us all?

 

[GeorgeK]

Webmaster of freef*ckpicture.com and other "elite" names? hahaha

Too bad you can't name any of them....I guess we'll have to take your "word".

 

[DomainPairs]

I own a bunch of adult and non-adult websites, and I'm probably going to switch all addresses to a PO box, and use a mobile telephone number. This is not to hide from the authorities, but to avoid spam, junk mail and annoying phone calls.

 

[NameBox]

Originally posted by GeorgeK
Webmaster of freef*ckpicture.com and other "elite" names? hahaha

Too bad you can't name any of them....I guess we'll have to take your "word".

GeorgeK,

I defy you to find any websites that I operate that I own. Fact is, if there is a pornographer in this thread, it is not I. I would counsel you to stop hurling libelous (and actionable) accusations.

Why are you sensitive on this issue? Do you really think that attacking others with baseless accusations will do anything except serve bring liability crashing down on your shoulders?

 

[GeorgeK]

What was libelous, NameBox? Obviously freef*ckpicture.com isn't resolving, so that's a site no one administers. It's a reference to the fact you've never identified a *single* website you own.

I defy anyone to identify any websites or domain names that NameBox owns! Or, even what his or her name is!

Making insinuations about my company, via "Leap" and "Faith" started this thread, NameBox. You reap what you sow. It's a tough job for me being at the center of your universe, and you yourself put me there. If you want, put me on ignore and don't try to "hit and run" and toss out cheap shots.

Go f*ck yourself.

 

[GeorgeK]

Maybe you can answer this, friend of Cameron:

Why was Cameron banned from Domain King's board?

 

[NameBox]

Hyprocrisy:

http://www.restricted.com

 

[GeorgeK]

Wow, NameBox can go through threads to see domains I reference. What is hypocrisy about having registered a name for one of my company's client, in my company's name? Is the domain illegal in any way?

Check out the WHOIS for nursechat.com. Same method as GoDaddy's Domains by Proxy.

And notice the WHOIS for nursechat.com was last updated in May of 2002, so no monkey business on my part.

What name(s) do you own, o mighty friend of Cameron?

 

[NameBox]

Originally posted by GeorgeK
Wow, NameBox can go through threads to see domains I reference. What is hypocrisy about having registered a name for one of my company's client, in my company's name? Is the domain illegal in any way?

Check out the WHOIS for nursechat.com. Same method as GoDaddy's Domains by Proxy.

And notice the WHOIS for nursechat.com was last updated in May of 2002, so no monkey business on my part.

What name(s) do you own, o mighty friend of Cameron?

Firstly GeorgeK,

I never said that using a "domains by proxy" or "in trust" proviso is "illegal". Only that it is questionable in case someone (who was the "real" registrant) wanted to "appear" as only an agent of the hypothetically "real" owner. As the law of agency confers benefits and liabilities, wouldn't one want to be explicit in appearing as the beneficial owner or not?

IMO, it would be "wiser" for an agent, etc., to appear as a technical contact, etc., with the real "registrant" being identified as such. No confusion, no mistakes, no problem

Now, why you chose to carry forth your vendetta against DnP and lay it at my feet, I don't know. Why did this hypothetical thread about the advisability of the "in trust" arrangement turn into such a personal sore point?

I've never questioned your word, unlike your attacks on the integrity and veracity of DnP's statements for example. As you state that you (at times I suppose) register names on behalf of clients, wouldn't you then agree with me that clarity in terms of domain ownership is crucial, especiially with regards to certain classes of websites.

I would think that given your credo of honesty and integrity, etc., etc., you would be 100% in agreement that whois records should be factual (as they may be interpreted as such on face value). Therefore, an agent of a beneficial owner would be clearly identitified as performing that function in the whois.

I hope that we are complete agreement on this issue!

Cheers and good day to all

 

[GeorgeK]

NameBox: don't try to play all "innocent", when you knew all along you were referring to me via your "leap" and "faith" above. You're the type that shoots people from behind. Be a man!

If you think any name's WHOIS is inaccurate, go file a report with ICANN or Tucows. Otherwise, shut the f*ck up!

So, once again, GO F*CK YOURSELF. I'm sure that's not the first time someone has said that to you. Only you decide, via your own behaviour, if it is the last.

 

[NameBox]

Originally posted by GeorgeK
NameBox: don't try to play all "innocent", when you knew all along you were referring to me via your "leap" and "faith" above. You're the type that shoots people from behind. Be a man!

If you think any name's WHOIS is inaccurate, go file a report with ICANN or Tucows. Otherwise, shut the f*ck up!

So, once again, GO F*CK YOURSELF. I'm sure that's not the first time someone has said that to you. Only you decide, via your own behaviour, if it is the last.

My Goodness!

Such profanity! Such vulgarity! I suppose that using a "*" symbol in this case, is akin to using the "domains in trust" ploy on a whois record. "But I never swore or used profanity ... didn't you see the "*" symbol ...."

Not being a contortionist, your witty suggestions are physically impossible Wonderful to see that the spirit of Churchillian debate lives on in 2003. Such witty bon mots! Well Done Great Orator!

You seem to flip-flop. Are you the "real" owner, or did you register the name for a "client". Either way, the "in trust" arrangement seems somewhat ill advised. As I said, I've never questioned your word, unlike your diatribes against the honesty of others, so tell us categorically if you're the owner or not.

Lastly ... no, you are mistaken yet again, you have the dubious "honor" of being the first person to tell to me G.F.Y. I usually don't associate with people who are apt to use such vile profanity. Shouldn't we be a wee bit more civil than resorting to such purile behavior? Would one want their children to behave in this manner? Or behave in this manner in their presence?

I, for one, won't stoop down to the basest of all levels, uttering profane and vile statements against others. Doesn't look good on the one doing the uttering after all :sad:

Cheers!

 

[GeorgeK]

Just like a turkey cannot fathom what goes on in the minds of eagles, you're one pathetic and uninformed f*ck, NameBox.

This thread is giving you some DNFBucks, at least.

Why don't you tell us 1 domain name you own, NameBox? Soar like an eagle, or be a turkey.

 

[PACKERGARE]

i had a bingo site