Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

thanks for the information and good post.

Perhaps you can briefly touch on the other subject at hand ( 2257 etc )

I agree it is not your job to "police" the content of your partners, but i think its rather obvious you must use some "personal" judgment when you approve sites.

If a site wanted to use ccbill and had what appeared to be 7 year olds fucking would you approve it simply because it wasn't PROVEN to be 7 year olds, obviously not. Ok so lets bump up that age to 8 then 9 etc

If a site wanted to use/was using ccbill and had PLAYBOY.COM stamped in huge bold letters across every picture are you saying you wouldnt have an issue with that until a copyright holder stepped forward to complain ? i think not.. thats favortism right there isn't it ?

"The court also decided that CCBill has no right or ability to determine on its own whether or not a particular site is infringing."

so if i read that correctly you are forced to allow me to use ccbill to process obviously stolen content, that if i ask you to process for my site of blatantly watermarked and well known stolen pictures you will allow it ?