Moniker Privacy Services, Company Broadcasting Bieyanka Moore's Movie, Has Been Sued in Past for Child Porn
According to a lawsuit recently filed by a girl's mother, last year RealityKings.com uploaded a hard-core porn featuring her 15-year-old runaway daughter, who used the stage name Bieyanka Moore. Though Reality Kings has claimed it removed the offending video "immediately" after being informed she might be underage, Moore's film has spread throughout the Internet and is still easily viewable.
One company that is still profiting off the video is Moniker Privacy Services, which is based in Pompano Beach and has registered at least five porn sites still featuring the video and X-rated screen shots -- seven months after a family member left comments on the sites warning, "This is child pornography, and your site can and will face charges!"
But Moniker Privacy Services has been down this road before. Less than a year ago, it was sued for broadcasting the statutory rape of a 15-year-old Florida girl.
Finding the actual humans that run Moniker takes a bit of leg work. In Florida corporation records, the company is registered to another company: Domain Systems, Inc. That company, meanwhile, is registered to three principals -- Jeff Kupietzky, Elizabeth Murray, and Todd Greene -- all of them based out of an office in Los Angeles.
They aren't exactly dwelling in boiler rooms. Kupietzky, CEO of domain giant Oversee.net, does plenty of interviews -- including this one in which he mentions Moniker.
Four years ago, an 18-year-old Californian named Nathaniel Fry met a 15-year-old girl from Seminole County on MySpace, according to a lawsuit. He persuaded her to travel to Sacramento, where on April 1, 2007, he wrote "4/1/07" and "sup /b/?" on his hand -- codes for the notorious online forum 4chan -- and photographed her performing oral sex on him. He then uploaded the photos to 4chan.
The photos soon wound up on sites such as exposedexgfs.com and kinkygfs.com. A lawsuit filed May 12 by the now-adult victim -- identified only as Jane Doe -- named Moniker Privacy Services as liable for disseminating the child porn, even if it was just a front company used to conceal true owners. Doe's lawyers quoted law stating such "privacy service" companies are "liable for the activities of the operators... whose identities they seek to protect." Update: A Moniker spokesperson contacted us to clarify that after the company removed the site's domain registration privacy, Moniker was removed from the lawsuit.
The case is still in court. Tomorrow we'll bring you more information on Moniker Privacy Services, one of the dirtiest Internet-based companies we've encountered -- and that's saying a lot. Messages left by Riptide at Oversee.net and Kupietzky's home yesterday were unreturned.
We've embedded the Nathaniel Fry complaint below.
Update: From Moniker spokesperson Mason Cole: "We have not seen a copy of the new lawsuit on which you're reporting. Regardless, no Oversee company, Moniker included, is interested in contributing to the availability of child pornography, or any other illegal activity. When notified of verified or obvious illegal activity, our privacy division removes privacy services for the domain name(s) in question; further, if we have verified proof of illegal activity, particularly activity of this nature, often will terminate the registration of that name.
Unfortunately, as a registrar, we have no ability to control content published online. We do encourage internet service providers and others to do everything they can to limit the availability of illegal content. In this case, however, we have removed privacy for not only the domain name in question but for all others in that domain name holder's account. If there are other domain names involved in the same type of activity, Moniker wants to be immediately notified at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Given the above, it's unfortunate that you decided to label Moniker as you have: 'one of the dirtiest internet-based companies we've encountered and that's saying a lot.' Please reconsider now that you have the facts in front of you.
With regard to the Jane Doe case to which you refer in your coverage (case filed 5/21/10), again, there are facts you did not report. Specifically, once notified of the issues involved, Moniker immediately removed the registration's privacy and, as a result, was voluntarily removed by the plaintiff from the legal action. In the interest of responsibility and accuracy, again, please update your coverage to include this as your column is extraordinarily accusatory."