No. It's my fucking content that gets removed and put back up. DMCAS get sent to Host, SegPay, and the webmsater.

But, You ever dealt with a host in the Netherlands?

When will that be?

No. But, and you can correct me if you feel differently, I don't think a site that is all stolen content should have the "luxury" of being processed by a processing company when they also have videos of 16 year olds on the damn site. And how would you feel when you went to the site to get links to send out yet another damn DMCA and your video was right next to a video of a 16 year old kid. I puked.

And it wasn't like they hid the fact -

"Webcam - 16Yo Blond Boy Jo In Bath (10 Min)"

You are right, it's not rocket science. A service provider should not be making these judgment calls, period.

Not quite. I haven't clicked through yet but I am assuming this is a tube that accepts user uploads. The most any billing company should do is what they already seem to be doing, make sure it is taken down when the proper channels are used. They are not in the business of verifying claims made by others.

No, you should do everything you can to make sure the law is updated to something that works. As the law stands, you send DMCA and they remove or say no. They say no you can sue.

lol. There are so many wanna be board lawyers it cracks me up. Why don't you go create a tube site with all your "legal" expertise and let me sue the fuck out of you. (For the MOST part when a tube site accepts payment via an ISPS they can pretty much toss out any and all safe harbour protection they have.)

Madness.

Sig.

I agree -

GOD SHOULD! But he said he was busy at the moment!

Why has nobody responded on the point of Visa regulations with this guys claim of underage porn - etc?

That should go without saying.

Here is the thing - VISA has been pretty damn good to the adult industry so far. But, if the industry does not impose some form of regulation on itself (like not processing for CP or sites with stolen content and no id's) then VISA will come smack down on this industry so damn hard that heads will spin and 2257 will look like a walk in the park.

The US govt couldn't shut down the industry with COPA, but VISA sure as hell could put a huge dent in it overnight.

Tube sites with uploaded user content and mainly stolen content should not be processed by processing companies in the first place.

do you have anything to substantiate this? first ive heard of this, are you pulling that out of your ass?

I wouldnt hold my breath. lol

I understand your point but did you emailled Segpay first before posting here? If so how long you waited for? Also did you contacted the host? The point of your post is just to do some drama or?

At my point of view Segpay is a serious company and obviously they take thoses things seriously, however they don't need such drama unless you contacted them first about this matter.

Obviously Visa gonna come down to this industry if people in that industry are not able to fix problems themself and thats include not making publicity of every issues!

Precisely - and who could blame them.

Our industry should be incumbant to police itself and weed out the CP scum whatever way we can.

Good effort on your part so far. :thumbsup

Three questions. Three answers.

1. Yes. emailed multiple times. Sent DMCAs as well.
2. Yes. Host was contacted. Sent DMCAs.

But, the very next day - more content goes up. Repeated 1 + 2. Was going to repeat it again when I saw a 16 year old kid on the site and said it's enough.

3. Point of the thread was to get SegPay to cut off the site so *possibly* they may think twice about allowing CP on the site and continued use of stolen content until we can get it shut down. No more. No less.

Two issues:

#1 Can Tube Sites claim Safe Harbour? The IO vs Veoh suit gave some claim to that
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/c...-veoh-networks
But, if you read the final decision, it was somewhat murky. Almost like Gore vs. Bush 2000 where the Supreme Court said it only applies in this case. There is not a lot of case law that says that tubes sites can claim safe harbour.

#2 If you read DMCA law and the requirements of safe harbour and then look over Visa regs to be compliant, they contradict. Under safe harbour you pretty much have to say I have no control over the content. That is kinda hard to do if the Processing company's compliance dept wants to see an id of a model.

Safe harbour also has that "financial interest" clause as well.

but then there is no real good case law to go by. So, it is a little murky.

lol. They will crack down on the X-sells below the join form and the white on white text before they care about this. :2 cents:

Somebody has to...

Surprising news. Segpay seems to be a very ethical company started by people who worked for ethical companies.

:Oh crap

makes sense, thanks for the response

Common knowledge - but still good to make mention of again.

That is just not true. A legal tube site would be one that operates like YouTube. They trust that people own what they upload but have a system in place in case they don't. If YouTube decided to start charging money tomorrow for access to some / all of the content there it would change nothing because it's irrelevant to what you are discussing.

My point is that you claim the owners of this website are breaking the law. I'm sure they are but that does not make it fact. This is absolutely not something that payment processors should have any voice on. If you accept payments for porn that isn't illegal and the site is selling access to porn that isn't illegal then your obligations end there. If and when they are found to be using stolen shit (you know, proven) then it should become the issue of the biller.

I know this is your content and I know you are hot about someone using it but it's warping your thought process and making you an irrational mess.

You are right. Now, you have the job of figuring out which ones are legal and which ones aren't. You must provide absolute proof. Get started.

Yes he is pulling it out of his ass, see my response to it above.

Let me FART A BIG ONE JUST FOR YOU

feels better...

Can you cite some case law to back up the fact that YouTube is in fact legal and has safe harbour protection. There are some companies spending millions of dollars on legal fees that beg to differ. They *probably* know more than you.

If you can understand basic law, http://newteevee.com/2008/08/06/yout...its-a-roundup/

dig a little deep and read the suits.

Now, show me where Youtube via case law has absolute safe harbor protection...

(I believe that YouTube probably will in fact be ruled to have safeharbor. But, does a porn site that keeps videos in a que, admits that they review them before going online, and picks and chooses the ones that they want to display have safe harbour?)

http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewconte...ntext=expresso

You may want to read through that. It will give you some insight.

Courts do that. :2 cents:

simply amazing what gets processed.

Thumbs Up!

Duke

@ Webmaster Army

Think about "Direct Financial Benefit" and ask yourself what happens IF a tube charges for membership. Does the content (videos) in a tube site derive a direct financial benefit? Umm.. Well, it is the bread and butter that the consumers are whipping out their cards for, isn't is? Here is some case law...

The Ellison court further narrowed the Fonovisa precedent for the direct financial benefit
prong as applied to the digital world in Napster. ?The essential aspect of the ?direct financial benefit? inquiry is whether there is a causal relationship between the infringing activity and any financial benefit a defendant reaps, regardless of how substantial the benefit is in proportion to a defendant?s overall profits.?147 In this case, AOL was not found liable for hosting USENET groups where users transferred an author?s copyrighted novels. Insufficient evidence was presented that AOL?s ?customers either subscribed because of the available infringing material or canceled subscriptions because it was no longer available.?148 The USENET groups were not found to be a draw that increased AOL?s userbase, but rather were an added benefit of the service.149

The Cybernet court found that there was a strong likelihood of success that there was a
direct financial benefit. Unlike Ellison, the content of the websites found in Cybernet?s network was the primary attraction for customers. ?The more consumers appreciate the content of a page, the more money Cybernet receives,? as the user will only signup through their AdultCheck system if they are pleased by the pictures appearing on the member website.150 Unlike the Ellison court, where the copyright holder presented insufficient evidence to support a finding that the USENET groups acted as a draw, the Cybernet court placed this burden on the defendant:
?Cybernet has given no reason to believe that these pages do not attract consumers, thereby creating a financial benefit to Cybernet."

http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewconte...ntext=expresso

Anyways, enough of this stuff. There is a fresh batch of videos that went up today that I need to get some DMCA's done for.

I was willing to be open minded about this until I saw the "Is Harry Potter Gay" clip online there. Warner Brothers are exceptionally litigious, and there is no way anyone should be processing cards for content like that. I am sure Segpay will deal with it.

You may want to look at http://www.ibill.net they are back and growing quickly

lol. Tell me this is a joke. :disgust

No joke:mad:

Ok. It looks real. But... WHY? It can't be the old Ibill as most of them are at another processor. So, did a janitor at the old Ibill decide he wanted to start a billing company?

What am I missing here?

OMG! I have 2 more posts to go before I break 100 posts! Been in this business since 1998 and just finally breaking 100. You can tell how much of a drama queen I really am on gfy. ugh!

OMG! I missed that! We agree on something. Woof! We proved that more than once.

Not to beat a dead horse, but in the SegPay Service Agreement it states that,

Client represents and warrants to SegPay that it is the owner or that it has full right and authority to use and disseminate all information, data, graphics, text, video, music or other intellectual property which either forms a part of its Web site, which is provided by Client to End-Users, or which is used by Client in its advertising and promotion to End-Users. The Client agrees to accept any valid Proof of Purchase provided by SegPay as payment for access to the Client's services.

We proved that multiple times...

I have a question. Since you posted this I have seen five more of our videos (that were previously removed) on the first four pages of the site. Please advise as to what I should do, The videos were removed previously via DMCA requests but are appearing yet again after you have told the webmaster to remove all illegal content. Our content is NOT illegal, but his use is. Did you perhaps confuse him by saying "remove all illegal content" ?

Please advise me if you want me to wade through more child porn to get the links to our content to send you, the host, and the webmaster.

BTW, the webmaster told us to send DMCA requests only to him (not the host or you) because... (ugh with only 100 posts I am not sure if I should say what he said to our attorney.)

Anyways, thank you for the fast action and I eagerly await your reply.