Quote:
Originally Posted by Due
I think I have a problem understanding too. I read from your post that you don't know but assume it's the card association.
What am I missing ? I must be dumb as a door
|
When Mega launched in January 2013 they did not accept payments directly but used resellers linked to Instra Corporation and
I know as fact that we were responsible for convincing Paypal to exit some of those resellers. I think it's already on the public record that we worked closely with the head of Paypal's brand risk management area to shut down many Paypal accounts associated with many file lockers big and small.
Mega changed their structural processes and successfully gained direct processing of payments through Paypal in the months that followed. They managed to convince Paypal that Mega complied with Paypal's policies with regard to file hosting services. In other words they were approved by Paypal as a merchant.
Since that occurred there have obviously been various organisations lobbying Paypal to exit Mega. I know that we unambiguously presented Paypal with our views in several meetings at a high level within Paypal. I also know that other rights holder groups and stakeholders also did the same. So a wide range of groups and organisations were asking Paypal to exit Mega.
So was it our arguments that swayed Paypal ? I don't know that.
Was it the MPAA ? I don't know that.
Was it the RIAA ? I don't know that.
Was it the NetNames report last year ? I don't know that.
Was it the card associations this year ? I don't know that
Could it have been Paypal themselves doing their own risk assessments ? I don't know that.
Did Paypal simply decide processing for Mega was bad for business ? I don't know that.
Or was it the result of a culmination of continued lobbying by stakeholders in the IP space ? I don't know that.
What I do know is that
it has been mentioned in the media that the card associations and the US Government were instrumental in the outcome. Is it conjecture or fact ? I don't know. I do know that TorrentFreak are usually very well informed about their stories, however I know many examples where they completely miss the mark.
I am not privy to the internal decision making processes of Paypal. Nor would be any other stakeholders with the exception of the card associations who would probably have more insight than anyone else considering the symbiotic relationship between Visa, MasterCard, the banking system and Paypal.
This is the real world. Nobody hands out a door prize for the winning argument. Nobody is going to ring you up and say congratulations you changed our minds. These things are usually a cumulative, collective, drawn out process in which you either see an outcome you want or you don't.
In this case the outcome we wanted has been achieved, so frankly I don't know and don't care why it happened now and not a year or two years ago. I am simply glad that Paypal finally exited what I consider an illegitimate business running an illegitimate business model that profits from copyright infringement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markul
I think I actually hit the nail (again).
You took credit for other peoples work (again) and tried to talk your way out of it (again).
The AdultKing scam goes on  |
Markul, there's going to come a point at which I decide not to let your untrue statements continue any further, when that time comes you will regret picking the fight. My advice to you is to stop before I get to that point. Because you will lose any war that you decide to start with me.