While I agree with you, we also have to think about the fact that ccbill also makes 14.5% off of the site who is stealing your content. Perhaps they, the thief, actually earns MORE money for ccbill than you do?

:upsidedow

Oh I'm sure CCBill makes more from all the stolen content sites than they do from me personally. And that's why I cynically don't expect much to change. But I'd hope the vast majority of their income is from legal businesses, and if we all keep talking about it maybe collectively we'd have some influence. I pulled out numbers to dispute someone saying that the cost of checking docs was an obstacle. The cost of verifying a few models on new sites should be insignificant compared to what clients are paying for their serivce.

Love your sites btw. :thumbsup

My deductive reasoning leads me to conclude that your Dare Ring site (and the newer site) have done well over 3 million dollars in business! Not bad for a "couple small amateur sites"! Well done.

hi dwb, whenever we get a dmca notice we act right away and the client basically gets a notice to take the content down or get processing turned off...when/if we get repeat dmca notices on somebody, we will take them down for good.

if ccbill added 100 new sites a day and each only had to provide 5 pics, thats only 500 pics per day = 1 employee

sure would be costly , perhaps as high as 50 cents per year per site.

This industry is renowned for it's belief in others doing it's job for it and doing it for free. (Did that make sense?) I'm sure you understand.

Around 20 years ago I got introduced to a guy called Steve Eastman who runs an organisation called APIC. It might be a bit less, but it was a long time ago. He would trawl the Internet for sites that were using the content of his members and send an email to them and to the hosting company to have it removed. He later followed it up with a DMCA if the content was not removed.

One of the things thrown at him was he only looked after companies within his organisation and paid him to look after. Many thought he should look after people's content for free.

The Adult Internet needs to fall behind one big organisation and get it under one roof to make the pirates squirm.

To play devils advocate here... If I was a ccbill client and they suspended my processing because of a random third party report that I didn't own the content, I would be fucking livid.

CCBill's position in the surfer > paysite equation does not have much to do with licensing of photos and videos. While as a producer I hate content theft, placing the blame on a processors shoulders is not going to get you anywhere. The fact that so many people are jumping on ccbill for this is kind of worrysome... GF site has your content? Talk to their host. Send them legal paperwork. Wost case scenario, they remove ccbill from the equation and give your shit away for free like the tube sites :winkwink:

Reading this thread there seems to be one theme running through it. CCBILL should be policing content on sites they process for in a very difficult way to do on their own.

They are in this to make a profit so they can stay in business and process for the rest of us. So here are my solutions.

If you don't like the way CCBILL run their business use another processor, if enough do this CCBILL will change.

If you want CCBILL to get hit by multiple DMCAs day after day from multiple content owners suffering from stolen content, then all join Remove Your Content.

Both solutions require you to do something that WILL cost you money. But many seems happy to ask CCBILL to do something the will cost them money and could land them in court and losing. Do you really want that?

Hey there,
Did you change your policy? I have gone through this with you guys before and at that time 1 DMCA was not enough to act at all on your end.

It looks as though you now have a strict policy, based on what you are saying, so that is great news. I've been bypassing CCbill as someone to send notices to as it was a waste of time in the past. Good to know you're on board now. :thumbsup

Strawman argument. Noone is suggesting that they boot anyone after an unjustified complaint. The equation is simple. One webmaster has IDs and documents. The other webmaster has nothing. Case closed. No records, no processing, should be the rule.

The current situation has one CCBill client stealing from another CCBill client. I think CCBill clients already pay enough to expect some effort on their part to prevent this. A one-time doc request when adding new sites is not too much to ask. It's neither expensive nor time consuming, and would prevent so much piracy, there's no excuse not to do it.

It goes like this...

I send a DMCA showing where you stole my content, the URL or the DVD(s) and you can count on it going to your host, your billing (all of them), the webmaster listed on the whois, the domain registar and any other name I can get access to. I'm going to hammer the US based businesses the hardest as they are going to be pushed the most to comply.

So be lived. I don't give a shit. If I prove you are stealing my content, I'm taking you down regardless of how pissed you are.

BTW, I really don't want to seem like I'm hating on CCBill. In all other areas, they're doing everything right. Never had a problem with payment or where (rare) technical issues didn't get immediate attention. Long ago I was an iBill client so I know the difference in service they provide. I'm making good money and have lots of happy affiliates who can trust that the stats are accurate and they'll be always be paid. They're like a magic genie for lazy program owners like me who are happy to give away a cut to get all the micro-managing duties off my desk. This is the only area where I see need for improvement.

If it would be as easy as you assume, I could agree. But this random sample of 5 pics wouldn´t improve anything. It would only work if the infringing site starts with stolen content. How long do you think they will do so if it´s easy to put on a members area with legit cheap content and change content afterwards?

So if you really want a decided improvement and want the processor to be responsible for, there is no way to stick to 5 random documents during the activation process. You are forced to have a look at every provided content, even if it is uploaded after activating the processing.

You can´t expect it for free. And in the second place controlling documents and deciding wether they are legit or not would meet legal problems. Maybe not during the signup process, but while processing for the prospect infringer. And as I said above, controlling 5 random documents before activating the account wouldn´t change anything.

You are making your point. I can´t see you hating on CCBill.

Free? No. We already pay 14.5%.

If I were attempting a solution, I would ask for 3-5 random IDs at signup. Then 3-5 more random IDs after any DMCA complaint. Verification is easy as a thief will not be able to produce realistic drivers-license looking photos from the videos he's stealing.

Why is it so difficult for people to understand.

CC BILL can not ask for 2257 documentation, the law states that you only need to supply documents to those assigned to do inspections by the DOJ.

If CC Bill were to ask me for docs, I would simply say no. Not that I have anything to hide, simply I am not required to show them the docs.

We're not talking about 2257.

CCBill is a private business and can set their own policies. You're right, you're not legally required to give them a damn thing; but if you don't, they're not required to process for you either. They could insist that all potential clients first submit a photo of themselves on Santas lap.

so the site starts with licienced content. Gets approved and then goes on their way. Which makes your 5 pictures to start totally ineffective. The only way this would be effective is to make it an on going thing, or a 100% monitoring thing.

Add to that by doing this they would open themselves to a liability for all the sites they fail to catch (because of random luck), the additional cost in legal fees to defend against those new liabilities.

and it would cause a hell of a lot more than 50 cents a site

second you are censoring the user generated content marketplace which was exactly what the safe harbor provision was intended to stop.

but it is not that cut and dry. Let say one webmaster has the docs but lives in a country with clear privacy laws (PIPEDA - in canada) which prevents you from releasing private information like id. If you give them a free pass, CCBILL would become liable if they happen to be taking advantage of that free pass (since they are going above level required by law, and raising the expected level of compliance). If they do not give them a free pass then those customers who have a perfectly legal reason to keep the info private would be prevented from doing business with CCBILL. If the company choose to do business with CCBILL, and got sued by the model for violating her privacy (under canadian law it just a one page complaint to the PIPEDA board) that company could sue CCBILL for those fines (10K per instance).

Now i know i am using canadian privacy laws as an example, but may states in the US also have similar privacy laws. While governments are exempt (2257) private business would not be.


You have already mentioned that were happy with all their services at the current price point. IF you truely expected this extra service as part of your current fee, you would have left ccbill, paid someone else to do all the extra work, and use the surplus profit to add services like removemycontent.com.

There is always a huge legal liablity for going above and beyond what the law requires you to do, because you always potentially infringing on someone elses rights without being forced too by some legal justification. That action is a choice and you would have to accept the liability for it.

nobody even once suggested this take place. What was suggested is if you cant verify your content because its underage or not yours then you are canned

99% of the sites that are at issue here would never make it past approval.

bullshit , they already approve and disprove sites every day. They woud need legal fees ? for what ? child porn sites suing them ? lol

They already police content, we are asking them to do it more effectively. Regardless of your personal position we KNOW ccbill uses personal judgement on content when they approve sites.

What do you think happens when a site tries to get ccbill approval and has questionable pics. Do you really believe ccbill just approves everyone because it is not their job to be content police ?

bullshit !!! they have a choice to approve or deny these sites, your choice is to send in documents to prove or to find another processor.
so are the rest of us. :2 cents:

as well as 100% of the sites that are legal but have privacy laws like PIPEDA to worry about.



as i said before

If CCBILL added requirements that forced me to violate PIPEDA to get them to run billing thru them WHEN THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM TOO i would sue them for everything i could.

there is a huge difference between doing something because the law requires you to (stopping Kiddie porn) and doing something the law does not require you to do (stopping who are legal because of the safe harbor provision)

there are no such privacy laws saying ccbill must process for underage porn, sorry try again



nobody is suggesting they do.


wrong and wrong, firstly the 2 go hand in hand, without proof of ownership how can you possibly verify if any of the models are 18, you cant , so what you are saying is ignore child porn at the expense of dmca, and what i am saying is ethically and morally you should protect children as best you can. period end of story, what you are saying is its too costly for ccbill to hire one employee to curb child porn, sorry but many people disagree with you.

the 2 issues make it alot more fuzzy when put together , its much easier in mainstream where there arent issues with underage content.

You seem to be of the belief that its perfectly legal for me to sell copyright warner brothers movies until warner brother complains, not so.

Epoch does. Try getting a GF site approved with them.
They went through the whole process with me - from how I got the content, to picking 10 randoms sets and ensuring I had ID. I didn't mind - I had it all.

I don't see any drama threads on epoch on this issue.

By having CCBill playing the role of a "moral cop" is not going to solve your problem. The bigger problem is tubes, they are offering your stuff for free. For this reason I don't do paysite nor do I ever join one. If a site like Megarotic/Megaporn can get credit card processing for a bunch of stolen contents, I don't know how you can stop any stolen site from using any other processor.

In fact, I think that if you somehow are successful in yanking the site cc processor that stole your contents, they probably will be pissed and post your shit for free and that's the last thing you want them to do.

Anything that is on the internet is stolen and not just porn but from say music and movies to even college essay and written exams can be found. I don't think any internet business can operates without losing some % of their revenue from stole contents. If you are a paysite owner your not the ONLY one losing money, billion dollars company like SONY, NBC, FOX, etc is losing money from stolen contents too. I think it a fact of life.

never said there was
you however want them to randomly pick a video and ask them for documentation for that video. By definition random means they could pick a video that has nothing to do with kiddie porn (ie milf)

but you want them too, the act of making me produce documentation for 3 random videos would in fact do just that. I would have to violate the privacy rights of those models by releasing their private information to a non governmental third party.

remember consequence of not showing the id in the kiddie porn example is ccbill reports you to the appropriate authorities (hense a government authority is requesting the ids)

that is the biggest bullshit statement i have ever heard
are you actually trying to say that you could not tell the difference between milf content and kiddie porn.

You would have to be the single biggest moron if that was true.

The fact is there is tons of content that could be unlicienced but not related to kiddi porn.

Those milf models would have PEPIDA granted right to file a complaint against any company who released their info to a non governmental business like ccbill.

your proposed policy would absolutely violate their rights.

THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING

that is absolutely not what you are saying
you are trying to tie copyright infringement to kiddie porn to justify a draconion policy that would violate many foreign countries laws for things that could no way shape or form be kiddie porn (milf content)

If you were truely saying they should do the best they can to protect children you would be demanding that they pull every person dealing with DMCA complaints and put them on scanning the sites updates for kiddie porn.

You would be blasting your colleges who spend time and effort sending DMCA notices to the billing company instead of just focusing on the company who is actually hosting the content because they are taking people way from scanning the sites for kiddie porn.


but that not at all what we are talking about
we are talking about providing hosting services to a site that might be selling unauthorized copyright material when the safe harbor provision says that is legal.

If CCBILL actually owned the site in question then and only then could you claim you think i believe "that its perfectly legal for me to sell copyright warner brothers movies until warner brother comlains"

Until you produce proof that is exactly what is happening you are blantantly misrepresenting what i am saying to try and justify your bullshit proposed fix.

As Corvette has said when they get a DMCA notice they get the offending site to remove it. I think if they waited for 3 or 5 to act they might find themselves in trouble with the law on DMCA, not a lawyer it's just my understanding of it.

The problem is the lack of communication between content owners or licensees. When a site steals from one it could be stealing from many many more. But CCBILL only get one DMCA. If CCBILL got a DMCA from every one who is having their content ripped on these sites they would be forced to act.

However if you took on CCBILL as a processor knowing the way they run their business you accepted it. If you feel very strongly, move it away and if enough did that CCBILL would change. If you stay then you accept their ways.

Trying to change them is good, but there are better ways, but it needs us to take the initiative.

And this is the biggest problem. Pirates do not have to use CCBILL. They can use Commercegate or any number of processors who really don't care. I met the Commercegate reps at a show a few years back and they wanted my business. I told them not while they support sites like Megarotic that have stolen content. Their response was a joke. The rep told me they did have a problem with Megarotic in the past but now it's cleared up and fine. When I told them they allow surfers to upload content they replied I have no way of knowing a surfer does not own the video he's uploading!!!!!

They don't care, turn a blind eye and take the money. We as an industry are not united enough to do anything about it. We complain about piracy and post on boards that allow people who are pirates or support them to post, promote and even advertise their sites.

United we stand, divided we fall.

a very very interesting thread indeed