Moniker Privacy Services, Company Broadcasting Bieyanka Moore's Movie, Has Been Sued in Past for Child Porn

Categories: News

jeff_kupietzky.jpg
Jeff Kupietzky
​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 abuse@moniker.com.

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."

Previously:

Bieyanka Moore, Reality Kings' 15-Year-Old Porn Star?

Bieyanka Moore's "Underage" Porn Costarred a Gentleman Named Commando, Was Reportedly Produced by Kimbo Slice's Manager

Bieyanka Moore: Family Has No Luck Getting "Underage" Porn Off Internet

A Short History of Underaged Porn Scandals

Moniker Child Porn

Follow Miami New Times on Facebook and Twitter @MiamiNewTimes.

My Voice Nation Help
25 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
TeufelWolf
TeufelWolf

According to ICANN, proxy registrants are considered to be the registrants of record even though they are acting on behalf of others (go to http://www.icann.org/registrar... and scroll down to section 3.7.7.3):"Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name. A Registered Name Holder licensing use of a Registered Name according to this provision shall accept liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the Registered Name, unless it promptly discloses the identity of the licensee to a party providing the Registered Name Holder reasonable evidence of actionable harm."This means that if Moniker is holding the proxy (i.e., is the "registered name holder that intends to license"), and you can show "reasonable evidence of actionable harm" (and we'll let the lawyers argue as to what this is or who is empowered to provide it) Moniker is responsible for abuse of the domain unless they provide you with the identity of the "true" registrant.

IDN
IDN

Wow, what an incredibly stupid article.  Do some research before you spout your drivel.

Hot Sex
Hot Sex

you should sue them.

Esinny
Esinny

Everyday i received many junk emails, all of them belongs to  Moniker Privacy services. They are trashy spammers.

Zabijak
Zabijak

This has to be one of the best examples of bad journalism I have seen in months. I dont think that Mr Roberts can even be called a journalist after this. There is 0% effort to make a positive impact with this article. This man knows (he admitted it) that Moniker is not responsible, yet he isnt ashamed of using the keywords "Moniker" and "child porn" together to attract attention to his blog (filth). You sir are using the girls problems to up yourself and that is embarrasing. I sincerly hope that a defamation suit is on its way toward your employee. You shall not be missed.

Dave Zan
Dave Zan

Not to rush you, but shouldn't you be issuing a retraction ASAP? If you wish for someone to act quickly, then it's only fair you ought to do the same, right?

000001
000001

is this an onion article? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

YHG
YHG

No one takes this clown seriously. He's trying to make a name for himself by doing hard investigating: "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""Finding the actual humans that run Moniker takes a bit of leg work" (TYPE WITH YOUR HANDS 'moniker' in Google)

People like him would not last even in the good old pre-internet days of journalism.

L'emigra
L'emigra

GusGarciaDumbez, Moniker has as fault as your internet provider has for the stupid piece you just posted. 'I hope Moniker follows up on you and your stupid employer. By the way, did you give

Carl
Carl

Wow. Gus-Garcia Roberts: I have seen and heard uniformed and inaccurate reporting before, but this one is a whopper. You will be very lucky not to be sued for defamation. You are accusing a victim - of porn. You need to publish a retraction as soon as you get in tomorrow. There is a big difference between a publisher and a domain registrar/privacy service provider. You need to read up on this. Good luck to you. The publisher should be in jail. The domain registrar/privacy service provider is a victim too. They provide a 100% legit, legal, service for millions of domain registrants, and as they said, when they find a bad apple they withdraw the privacy service.

yahoo-UYF3YE6AILKVIWAJUKCYTWKRGE
yahoo-UYF3YE6AILKVIWAJUKCYTWKRGE

Just wait until next week when he accuses Godaddy's privacy service with willfully crushing kittens.

Oh wait, that could be true.

Am I Bugging You?
Am I Bugging You?

I think I won the argument, Gus Garcia-Roberts. Maybe you should spend more time researching your stories and less time doing "hot yoga"

Am I Bugging You?
Am I Bugging You?

I think I won the argument, Gus Garcia-Roberts. Try spending your time doing better research for your stories rather than doing "hot yoga"

John
John

This is bad "journalism" if you ask me. A LOT more homework is needed before posting things such as this:

"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..."

Moniker is a registrar not the one registering the sites. Big difference.

Scott
Scott

Um, Gus, do you know what a registrar is? Involving Moniker in this is like trying to hold the DMV responsible because someone used a car in a robbery.

Toodle83
Toodle83

Someone just get Chef Patrick to find out who owns the domains!

Just the Facts
Just the Facts

Newspapers are also be held liable for stating of false facts and you can't seem to get ANY correct. Read the complaint you published. * They are suing the owners of the names and the privacy services are named because they want them to provide the real information. Moniker needs this kind of request to share the info. Once revealed, the registrants names will be swapped into the complaint instead. * Also, there are 3 different privacy services mentioned from multiple companies, not only Moniker. * Moniker Privacy services is not broadcasting the movie, the websites are. * Moniker Privacy Services is not a registrant.

And the list goes on. Privacy services are designed to protect domain owners from anyone gaining access to see a registrants required name, phone number and address. A request from any legal authority will generate that information. Just like you wouldn't want everyone to know your home address and phone number by looking up your license plate.

Frank Michlick
Frank Michlick

Moniker doesn't own the domains, they just provide a privacy service for domain names as many registrars do. Get a court order and the real registrant of the domains will be revealed.

Am I Bugging You?
Am I Bugging You?

"Finding the actual humans that run Moniker takes a bit of leg work" Really Gus Garcia-Roberts? How did you even become a "journalist". It's the second largest domain registrar in the country. Did your sleuth and detective skills uncover that gem of knowledge? Do you even know what a domain registrar is, dumbshit? Hey look... gusgarciaroberts.com is available on Moniker!!!

Am I Bugging You?
Am I Bugging You?

Now these ass clowns are going after domain registrars. New Times is the morality police? Have you seen the last three pages of this rag???

GusGarciaRoberts
GusGarciaRoberts

It's not really about morality. It's about legal liability.

ARIYAS
ARIYAS

You should be hearing from Moniker/Oversee legal team pretty soon for defamation.

Am I Bugging You?
Am I Bugging You?

So you're a prosecutor now? Seems like New Times does a reality Kings story every day now about this non-story.

By the way, great job on your detective skills there... "Finding the actual humans that run Moniker takes a bit of leg work". Moniker is the second largest domain registrar in the country. Any idiot with internet access could get access to a sales rep over there. Oh and FYI they don't actually "broadcast" anything. "Moniker Privacy Services" is a domain privacy service, dumbass. The actual publisher is hidden and would require slightly more detective work than New Times editors are capable of. Guess that's why you work for a "news paper" which devotes the last 6 pages to prostitute and viagra ads.

GusGarciaRoberts
GusGarciaRoberts

Do some hot yoga, man. Go shoot some ducks. Relax.

I'm aware what Moniker is. I think that a company should still face liability if it's designed to protect other companies who do despicable things. As I stated in the article, it's an argument being made in court right now.

We do plan on writing often about this story. To us, it's anything but a non-story, and the high readership we've gotten in following it indicates that our audience agrees.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...