Quote:
Originally Posted by MrUnderwater
2. content/ video quality: I don't think everyone has understood that yet. It is a voyeur site, comparable to voyeur sites of topless or nudist beaches. Therefore the quality is not comparable with the high gloss porn videos. But they are authentic and - believe it or not - that's what some people want to see. I find the vast majority of porn with the so-called porn stars really boring. But this is a matter of taste and sexual preference.
3. unfortunately, nowadays it is no longer possible to offer such voyeur sites without restrictions. The compliance departmens have meanwhile real restrictions. After long examination and although all other conditions were given, CCBill had unfortunately rejected at the end. This is due to the restrictions imposed by the credit card companies. For old sites this does not apply yet, but CCBill wants to change this in the future. For this reason there are no faces to be seen.
|
I'm surprised that Verotel accepts your content as this is a prime example of unconsensual pornography and the content probably breaks several laws (including European privacy and criminal laws). That's why everyone else refused it. You shoot commercial porn without consent and age verification of the persons depicted and the fact their faces can't be seen doesn't change that.
Kind of strange as they (Verotel) refused a fully legal scene with all docs where an actress is shown to have a single sip of wine (even if it was nonalcoholic wine), yet they don't have a problem with voyeur sites? That's fucked up...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrUnderwater
I'm guaranteed to be on the legal side here
|
Who told you this?