No one knows for sure just how many link sites CCBill is attacking this way. I mentioned the latest issue concerning BondageDirectory.com because its both the latest concern and one of the most prominent sites of its kind.

But your point about Cybernet Entertainment using CCBill's competitors is definitely food for thought. It wouldn't surprise me if this attack was aimed directly at them.

I am making an assumption that might well not be valid; CCBill may be having issues with several link lists, and this is the only one known and being discussed to this point. But just saying that the bondage market has to be concerned with rape is one thing; knowing what CCBill thinks of as rape would be much more helpful. Again, not only is the content they found to be "rape" not described, there is nothing said about what links and/or banners that bondagedirectory.com could remove to be within CCBill's rules. Of course this is going to raise some questions.

It would be good with clear definitions for sure.

Another vote for clearer definitions here. At least then I could plan shoots around what CCBill will process and not have it down to the personal opinion of someone who works for them.

Documents and Notes re CCBill and Content
 

I tried to submit a researched response, but the forum program says I can't post URLs until I've posted 30 times here. So here's an expurgated version of my message.

--------------

SoCalKev asks "which link(s), or banner(s); does bondagedirectory have to remove so that CCBill would drop their objections?"

These words appear in BondageDirectory's first page metatags, and there are a few website listings to match:

"torture, pain, pierce, piercing, golden showers, wartersports, fistfuck, fist, facial, fisting, fistfucking, facials"

Here's an excerpt from a September 2005 email notice that surrenderedsoul received from CCBill:

"Violating Offsite Links (Underage Diaper Rape Bodily Excretions )
bondagedirectory
bondagegirls dot net
fetbot "

Here's an excerpt from a May 2006 email notice that ashleyrenee received from CCBill:

"AUP Violations
Violating Offsite Links (Underage Rape Bodily Excretions )
bondagedirectory "

CCBill contacted her a day later and told her to unlink bondagegirls dot net.

Regarding content:

I am very concerned about Rosie's report that "Friends who've complied and been told last week they were back in good standing have again had mails from CCBill screaming about new AUP violations that were, I guess, not violations last week."

If sites are trying hard to comply with CCBill but being thwarted, CCBill needs to try to come up with a way to be consistent. I agree with SilentKnight's statement in this thread that there are "glaring inconsistencies" and this is a problem since webmasters are genuinely TRYING to comply when CCBill contacts them.

Other sites' situations:

SurrenderedSoul reported that their content was approved by CCBill, then about 9 months later they were told to remove a bunch of the content that had previously been okayed.

AshleyRenee dot com reports that during their CCBill review last week, content that was previously okay is now unacceptable. She has removed many sets from her site that CCBill told her to take down. She's made an enormous effort to get into compliance but she noted that from day to day, depending on which representative she talks to, the exact interpretations of the AUP change in regards to the content on her site.

Regarding categorizations of violations:

A photoset where my boyfriend came up behind Ashley, and grabbed and tied her up, was rated unacceptable under the "rape" designation because coming up behind someone to grab them looks non consensual.

So, readers of this thread who were wondering over the "no rape" rule, you see that CCBill staff apply the "no rape" categorization broadly.

Ashley has made a herculean effort to get into total compliance with CCBill, phoning them for feedback at every step and assuring them she will do anything they say.

Regarding CCBill's exact AUP:

CCBill's Acceptable Use Policies dated June 2005:
businesscenter dot ccbill dot com slash html_forms slash aupt.html

The above link does not quite match a version one website received in an email from CCBill in September 2005. Here's a summary of the categories that were described in the September 2005 email. (I compiled this summary back then, to keep in my records so that I could refer to it):

--------

Cannot have on webpages/site and cannot link to such webpages/sites.
Any and all depictions and/or actual occurrences and/or content and/or marketing and/or references to:
1. Underage: Provocative and/or Non-Provocative; including Hentai or animations.
2. Rape: Rape, involuntary sex or forced sex; in all mediums including Hentai or animations.
3. Bodily Excretions: Scat/fecal matter, person to person watersports, and/or a woman's period or menstruation.
4. Extreme Violence: Acts of extreme violence, and/or depictions of extreme violence in all mediums including Hentai or animations. Extreme pain and/or implying and/or suggesting extreme pain. Flogging (severe beating).
5. Bloodletting or Bloodshed. Consumption of Blood. Self-mutilation. Cannibalism. Depiction of gore inflicted by oneself and/or another individual or group. 'Snuff' or 'Fantasy Snuff' content and/or content involving or implying death or serious bodily injury. Autopsy photos.
6. Diaper Fetish: Diapers, Diaper Fetish and/or sites which depict models in diapers in all mediums including Hentai or animations; Sexual or Non-Sexual.

Forbidden on CCBill's website but not mentioned in the email list at the time: Bestiality, Incest.

Not forbidden on CCBill's website and not in the email list, but forbidden according to CCBill staff in phone calls: Chloroform (chloro, chloroformed), Kidnap (kidnapped, kidnapping), Ransom.

-----------------------

Regarding "Extreme Violence":

A drawing on Ashley's site of a damsel near a saw blade was categorized as such and therefore deleted. So bondage sites must keep in mind that old fashioned damsel in distress peril, even where no one is physically harmed and rescue is implied, that still qualifies as Extreme Violence and is not acceptable to CCBill.

CCBill is operating within the U.S. and they have to keep U.S. Visa, Mastercard, and their merchant bank/s happy or they'll be history. So webmasters complaining to CCBill, that won't help the situation. If a photographer or model wants to express their fantasies of bondage roleplay, bondage peril, or bondage conflict, they'll probably just have to switch to overseas billing services. :(

Until the overseas billing services decide our fantasies are obscene, too...! ;)

Firstly, welcome to the forum Lorelei. Good to have your voice here on GFY.

Hopefully Ron and the folks at CCBill will take the time and effort to respond to your well-written and detailed post.

I'd still appreciate some further explanation/clarifications from CCBill....or better yet some positive steps they may be taking to address the issues and taking corrective action.

It appears that MasterCard is getting squeemish about violent sex, gag, suffocation, rape, etc.. and content that is BDSM is getting caught up in the "bad" category.

Here is the case where private sector can enforce what the government cannot.

While you could have a first amendment argument to the "fantasy" or "simulated" aspect of the sexual depictions, those don't hold up with the plastic kingpins.

No need to worry about 2257 or obscenity, MC and VISA can do it by simply requiring the acquring Banks and the IPSP's to conform to their (new) rules.


Fight the female body inspectors!

Update - CCBill/BondageDirectory
 

Bondage Directory contacted CCBill this week and offered to bring their site into compliance so that CCBill-using sites would be able to continue linking to Bondage Directory.

As of today, Bondage Directory altered their site and metatags so that CCBill would take them off the banned-list.

--Lorelei

Give it time:mad:

Lorelei:

Thanks for the response. The first issue that I noticed is that your explanation of why bondagedirectory.com was under scrutiny does not match up to the concerns expressed by the CCBill CEO, unless fisting is equivalent to rape in their eyes. It would be interesting to hear exactly what CCBill's interpretation of this is; rape implies a nonconsensual act, and obviously not all fisting is, whether it is allowable or not.

If I am understanding you correctly, CCBill does not allow sites to use the words torture and pain??? If putting them in the metatags is a violation, obviously putting them in the site text is as well. I would imagine that every BDSM site on the Internet uses those words, even if its just "tickle torture." The "extreme pain" thing is so subjective it makes my head hurt; what, exactly, does this mean? You can show flogging, but it can't be "extreme" - again, what is that line? Obviously, showing any blood would be a bright line, but what about welts and bruises? If the bottom winces or groans, is it extreme?

While it is good to know that CCBill is apparently not singling out any particular site, it is pretty clear that the policies and standards there are far from uniform. Having been through a similar situation, I know what it is like to call a billing company compliance department and have the rules change from day to day, depending on which compliance officer was asked the question. The only thing that is certain is that the rules are only going to get more restrictive here in the US.

50.........

At the end of the day, it's Rons company and Rons choice on how they interpret visa and mc regs. Ron can run his company any way he likes and if you dont like his rules then there is no law that says you have to do business with ccbill... :2 cents:

On the surface, what you are saying makes sense. But webmasters who have signed a contract with CCBill should be owed the courtesy of an official explanation of CCBill's interpretations of these rules so they can make an informed decision as to whether removing the content or switching processors is a better business decision. Or is it your position that CCBill should have no duties whatsoever to its customers? Somehow, I feel that if it was your site facing this situation, you would want the information necessary to make an informed decision. While CCBill may have no choice but to follow the rules of the card associations - which is understandable - what, exactly, is the justification for not making clear their interpretations of these rules?

No one here is denying that.

However...the reality is CCBill has a symbiotic relationship with its clients. Maintaining a "my way or the highway" approach (which is what you infere above)...is not a good business model.

As socalkev says - you would likely view issues with a different perspective if CCBill's inconsistencies were affecting YOUR revenue bottom line. Its an easy thing to do sitting back and saying 'Like it...or lump it' when its not YOUR investment on the line.