Visa Bans Public Nudidty Transaction
 

So what now?

Seems like Visa are slowly starting to dictate the types of sites we can / cant run.

Any alternative solutions or ways to navigate around this new ban?

Link?

that's seriously fucked up

link?

hhmm

Was actually posted on another forum by one of the PSW Billing sales people.

http://www.pswbilling.com/apply/aup.shtml?

Item '20' in that long list.

I sale tranny Im all GOOD right ? :1orglaugh

Well there goes all the spring break websites.

I wonder if GirlsGoneWild.com is going to have THEIR processing pulled?

If i were GGW i would be more worried about getting sent to visit bubba in jail than my transaction processor atm LMAO

Well if that is the case, about no user submitted sexual pics in a members area, AdultFriendFinder is going to have some major problems with their 10 Million members who mostly all use sex pics.

In the prelim I think its geared towards the "shot on the beach at spring break type" but true AFF would be in a world of hurt. Not to mention all the other sites alike. :glugglug

Interesting. Is it only PSW making a point of this so far?

Ibill required 18 U.S.C. 2257 info on all clients sites some time ago. Maybe it was their way of dealing with it.

"As required by Visa USA, sites containing content depicting public nudity, nude beaches, nudist or nude camps may be in violation of minor protection laws, where proper 2257 compliance cannot be applied. In addition, no membership sites may contain user/member submitted pictures either via a picture post or message board that contains nudity or sexually explicit depictions. Any and all content found on PSW Clients sites must be in compliance with Title 18, Chapter 10, Sec. 2257 which is federal law."

wow when did that decree come down?

VoyeurWeb is huge and has 1000's of gigs of user submitted movies and pix.

Hey Visa is only covering it's ass.

This country has turned into 'Lawsuit Land' where people too lazy to get a job spend all day hunting for ways to file a lawsuit.

Do you know how much trouble they can get into if some parent finds their kid in the background of a pic of some nude chick posted on an adult site?

Of course we say " So what? They saw the nude chick on the beach in the first place and didn't mind. "

But that ain't the case. VISA is just minimalizing it's liability window.

Sucks, but I'ld do the same.

Well I guess Igor and the gang there are gonna have to come up with something quick.

Knowing Igor, he's already got a way to work around it.

Yeah i can also understand the reasoning behind why they did it but how comes only one IPSP has this info on their site to date?

I looked at ccbill, ibill and epoch and couldnt see this inf on their AUP or TOS links anywhere.

Visa is saying that "public nudity" MAY be in offense of the CHILD Protection Act... if you don't have any kids in your videos... it will be approved. If you have kids in your videos.... you are just sick.

:2 cents:
~Ray

P.S. If you show girls on the beach that look too young... you will need to prove to Visa that they are of legal age.

And it is understandable from their POV I think.. not that this will cheer us up.

18 uSC 2257 does not cover nudity, only sexual acts. I would want to see a primary source on this info before I made any changes.

This is true however, given the new wave of reality based pornography do you not think there may be more wide scale plans to somewhat reform the definitions of this act?

Would at least seem like a viable option by the government to somehow pave the way for the ever evolving internet model.

Also, by reforming some of these definitions, sites like those sick fake cp (understand that term is being used very loosly) could also be incorporated intot he public nudity reform if any such thing did happen.

it just looks like the more we do to ocmply with rules and regulations that we get given as a whole, the more things are thrown at us to hinder out business model.

what Probono said...


also, I think as long as the content is done in a ''documentary/newsworthy' type of layout it would be safer

now if you had the content mixed in with 200 feeds of cock-gobllins, anal-gape, etc....maybe not so much...


but who knows, this shit is changing all the time and the people with the most flexibility will survive...as is the case in any biz...

I love conservative moralists.

I won't believe it unless Kimmy posts on this thread.

:1orglaugh

So, what if you show 2257 information (though its not required) for everyone in the videos? Im sure we can get enough people together for a "public" shoot that still complies.

But, 2257 doesnt apply to a lot of non sexual porn.

exactly



if prosecuting non-sexual topics/nudity... I guess National Geographic, and Victoria Secret catelogs would be targets...

hell I think even the Bible had some stories of incest and some rather perverse topics....we going to prosecute that next?


Giddeons be warned?



hello...

She's busy celebrating her birthday :glugglug :glugglug :glugglug

Sorry but the USA sucks..... well ur law system does

As long as people can make an income from a lawsuit this will go on and on.

Whats next ?

No mature sites cous a 65 old ho feels discriminated ?

No ebony penatration becouse Africa has an aids problem and you should not show "unsafe" sex ?

Phuck it

Guess I have to find a regular job ?

Good!

I love morative conservatists--neegaaaaa please

speak a engrish

And/or ifriends.

Some billers love to shove up BS like 'as required by' when what they really mean is 'we heard a rumour and have no idea what we are required to do so are covering our own asses'. Could be that it is yet another new VISA reg that they have first jump on. However, it's more likely that they are as scared as everyone else and are getting carried away with that they think VISA wants them to do rather than what's actually required.

Fuck all this bullshit.

I didn't see VISA or the Republicans or who the fuck else complain about nudity and shit when them National Geographic and other science tv documentaries used to run shows of nude asian and african and S. american women!

Shit, I remember one NBC show where they showed some people in Africa sniffin' snatch during family hour.

It's bullshit, they can go fuck a dead chupacabra with this bullshit.

See, it's okay as long as the people ain't white. Then it's obscene. This horseshit about public nudity/CP is fulla more shit than a buttplugged hippopatomus.

( sputters, gawks, rolls off desk like John Belushi used to do on Sat Night Live....)

WTF is a chupacabra ?

http://www.wefuckinpublic.com/v03.jpg http://www.wefuckinpublic.com/v01.jpg http://www.wefuckinpublic.com/v05.jpg

ohhhh well !

After rereading this several times, here's my conclusions ...

Stud Money have to disagree with your thread header. I admit that it does at first glance seem that way, but reading more deeply (and over and over a few times), my opinion it that it doesn't mean that afterall

Here are the keywords: "As required by Visa USA, sites containing content depicting public nudity, nude beaches, nudist or nude camps may be in violation of minor protection laws, where proper 2257 compliance cannot be applied."

They're closing the loopholes for pedo sites, basically. If someone LOOKS underage and is nude, then you better have proof they aren't. That's my reading.

And what Probono said is true, 2257 is for sexual acts, but again, somewhere between 2257 and legal-aged model public nudity, pedos have been slipping through the crevice in between the two and this is being used to close that up.

I doubt any of the Drunk Girls and GGW sites will be disappearing.

As to the members uploads part, one should be getting model releases and 2257 info there anyhow. I'm sure those who submit to webmasters and include those and sign contracts before the pics are posted will be allowed to continue as well.

Anyhow, just my layman's opinions.

Sorta the hispanic Sasquatch, Yeti, Jersey Devil, Witch of the Black Forest, Jackalope sorta thing. :)