CCBill rep - inside please!
 

Word has it that CCBill is in the process of contacting all fetish/bondage webmasters that currently link with BondageDirectory.com (one of the oldest and largest bondage/fetish link sites) - and demanding they remove the link from their sites or risk losing their processing.

Ashley Renee - one of the most prominent and well-known of all bondage models in the industry has apparently been contacted by CCBill and told to remove her links to BondageDirectory.com.

Is this true?

And if so - do you wish to explain the justification to everyone?

I just got off the phone with ccbill

they said it was an april fools joke

then i was like "...but dude... it's may"

the the rep was like..... yo man..... you know where i can score some coke right now?

then he was like "oh shit.... i see something shiny......brb!"

so i was on hold for 32 minutes

and he came back and was like "....nevermind... it was just the light reflecting off the window" and he hung up on me

so i think everything is good to go. no need to worry

:1orglaugh

SOS, how the fuck do you come up with this shit. LOL

I think the CCBill rep is 'sharing' :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Every BDSM/Bondage/Fetish site owner I know who is processing via CCBill has had a tough time with them in the past week with AUP violations. We ourselves have had to edit our site enormously because things they were fine back when they approved our site are now completely unacceptable.

I was even told to remove a photo of a girl in a metal bubble-helmet on the basis it *might* look like her airway was restricted - no way on earth, there's a VERY clear gap between the helmet and her to allow loads of air. I've tried the damn thing on myself and doesn't even LOOK like it could restrict air flow.

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.

I have a LOT of time and respect for CCBill, and I've never felt the need to question them before. But come on CCBill reps - why have you started to go AUP crazy at BDSM/Bondage/Fetish websites suddenly? Have you had your knuckles wrapped by VISA? Are you going to stop processing for us kinksters? Public answers would really put our minds at rest here.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

shit that sucks!

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Keep in mind that rumors have been flying for months that the losers in the Justice Department were going to go after "extreme" stuff (whatever that is) first... and I have heard/read that some people have interpreted that to include bondage/domination.

Perhaps Justice is pressuring Visa who is quietly putting pressure on CCBill.

that would suck.

LMAO!

I think a few of your trams and trains have stopped running...

Bondage sites are bad, but sites where girls look like they are 13 are ok.

This is what's called "Market censorship" folks. :mad:

CCBill is feeling the pressure. The best thing to do is go over the rep's head and straight to the source.

Exactly!

Based on this latest news about CCBill - we no longer consider them a viable processing option and strongly suggest anyone owing/operating a bondage or fetish website to simply bypass CCBill in favour of a more open-minded processing service that doesn't censor based on subjective whims.

Its also noteworthy that no CCBill rep has entered the thread with an explanation. Speaks volumes IMO...

that's business, they have a right to run their business any way they see fit, and you have the right to switch processors, which i suggest you do.

Yep...that's business. And just as they have the right to run their business how they choose - we also have the right to point out and question their ambiguities.

And FYI - we use Verotel...not CCBill.

nothing wrong with V'tel........they've lasted a long time

Just a little bump for the CCBill rep - it's unusual for them not to appear and reassure their clients.

Their spin docs are still workin' on the final draft?

I haven't been contacted, and we have 4 sites w/ CCBILL that are bondage sites.

Fitz

i can't belive it !!! :S

But do you link those 4 sites with BondageDirectory.com?

It could very well be they're working their way alphabetically - since Ashley Renee appears to be among the first we've heard contacted about this latest issue.

However, without a CCBill rep stepping in to say anything...all we can do is conjecture.

This is very disturbing, indeed. I would be interested in their official response to this

SilentKnight

Corvette is out on vacation so we did not notice this thread till now. Yes we do let him take a vacation every 5 years even if he does not need it. The simple fact is that both Visa and Mastercard have Zero tolerance for certain types of adult material. Rape just happens to be one of those categories. Just like the Teen Site operators have to be concerned on how their sites are being "MARKETED" which is the same as being linked to in the Card Associations mind. The Bondage Market has to be concerned with Rape.

If you think this is a joke just ask one of my competitors why they had to change there name from Mysomething. I can also tell you that there are a couple of other companies in very hot water with MasterCard over this very issue.

CCbill has not had any trouble with this issue, nor do we plan to ever have any trouble. This is why our Compliance Department works 24hrs a day to review all our sites.

I am sure that the people at BondageDirectory.com are great people but if they wish to link to paysites that promote sales via Visa and Mastercard they will have to prohibit certain types of content. It is just that simple.

I am going to bed guys I have a 7am flight for business in the Morning so time to rest. I hope this answers your questions if not I will try to look in on Wed night.

Ron Cadwell
CEO
_____________
CCbill.com
Cavecreek.com
DrmNetworks.com

Ron, thanks for the reply and explanation. I assure you none of this is regarded as "a joke" - since this involves not only personal lifestyle and freedom of choice...but also livelihood for many of us.

While I understand Visa and Mastercard's issues with regards to rape content - there appears to be a very subjective interpretation and glaring inconsistencies on the part of CCBill's compliance dept. as to just what constitutes 'rape content'. This is the focus of my questions.

BondageDirectory.com has long been the de facto link site for the bondage/fetish niche industry (since 1999) - and a great number of bondage-related websites have enjoyed long-standing and lucrative link affiliations with them. BondageDirectory.com was recently acquired by Cybernet Entertainment - and to my knowledge does not have the benefit of accessing the pay member's area of websites they currently link with to ascertain and judge the content (based on CCBill's subjective standards). CCBill is essentially asking the impossible. Furthermore - CCBill is indiscriminately requiring bondage webmasters to remove links to BondageDirectory based on issues no one has control over.

Let's put this is simple terms to understand. Essentially - your company is telling us that we can't play ball with John Q. down the street because he's an acquaintance of Jimmy J.

CCBill seems incapable of interpreting and distinguishing consentual roleplay content in this regard. One person's fantasy roleplay in a consentual capacity is another person's interpretation of 'rape'. Just like a Hollywood movie that contains a rape scene is NOT a documentary - but entertainment...so too are websites that contain bdsm scenes acted out by paid, consentual adult performers.

But depending on which CCBill rep you ask - these standards are applied very inconsistently.

Now I know much of this will essentially fall on deaf ears since CCBill will merely pass the buck along and say "blame Visa and Mastercard - its their standards" - but our main issue at this stage is the glaring inconsistencies and subjective whims that CCBill is utilizing at this point and time. Quite obviously my observations are shared by a great number of bondage and fetish colleagues as witnessed on many webmaster forums these days. You might also wish to check out the ongoing discussions on BondagePhotography Yahoo group (one of the largest and most influential bondage/fetish industry forums online) - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bondagephotography/ - and read the many concerns of real people in the industry.

play by the rules.. or process with your own merchant account.. really that simple..

we do not like the ambiguity of the visa acceptance rules..but visa seems to change them daily...so it would be hard for processors to post those "rules" we have sites turned down from visa compliance regularly..

once just for having upsales to casinos in our members areas... which is similar to this thread complaint.. on being associated to another company...

but we also understand. that if the tables were turned... we'd go out of our way to protect our aggregate merchant account.. and a few clients would not be worth fines or loosing that account..

imho... ccbill is just protecting their interest... b/c they want to be here for the long haul for "everyone"...

Trouble is - playing by "the rules" is impossible since the rules aren't firmly established and are subject to daily interpretation.

Of course, if the tables were turned we'd do what had to be done to avoid losing the merchant account. But we wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, either.

It comes down to which side of the fence you're on. Laying down with barely a whimper makes sheep of us all. When we're dealing with people's livelihoods - its infinitely preferable to express our voices than jump off the cliff along with the rest of the lemmings.

But its NOT that simple. We're not talking about rape content here. We're talking about the censorship of consentual bdsm and categorizing it all under the rape content category.

It seems no one at CCBill is capable or experienced enough to distinguish between rape and consentual bdsm. Yet they're put in charge of calling all the shots and dictating to producers and webmasters what they can and cannot show.

Ron, please don't insult the intelligence of webmasters and content producers by lumping it all in to one category and defending your company's inability to distinguish between the two as being 'rape-related.' This does a great disservice to your webmaster clients and public image.

Yes, I realize you're subject to the CC company mandates - but lately it appears as though you're hiding behind those mandates and using them as an excuse for censoring far too much that isn't required.

It does seem odd if rape was the case. I can fully see why that is banned, but from all the bdsm website owners I have heard of or spoken to about CCBill compliance, rape has never been an issue, even mentioned. It has sounded much more like ordinary bdsm and other fetishes are being targeted, without any relation to rape.

Its consenting adults doing fully legal things, and even enjoying themselves oftentimes (as its often lifestylers doing the shoots within this niche).

I defer to those of you with much more experience...

The issue is not rape. The law has changed in the US.

My understanding is that if a red mark on the ass can be seen, it is now against the law - be it consentual or not.

So, even if we want to say that Visa made the rules harder, it won't matter who processes the credit card - A red welt is unacceptable whether you use CCBill, Verotel, or your own merchant account.

My mistake... It was in the UK.

Check out http://edgeplay.en.infoax.org/en/Spanner+case

But I think there was something in the US within the last six months

That's a nice cliche.

So who's protecting the interest of bdsm people?

BDSM and the law is a really grey area here in the UK - but red welts are not illegal per se.

The general rule of thumb here is that if a welt disappears within three days and doesn't require medical intervention then it's acceptable in law - if it takes longer than three days to heal then the dominant can be charged with grevious bodily harm and the submissive can be charged with aiding and abetting an assault on their own body.

In practise the only reason they put the spanner men away was because they were gay. As far as I know, no hetero BDSM couple have been charged with anything similar.

CCBill would still call it rape. :1orglaugh

This is news to me. Where do hear that a red mark on the ass is illegal?

I can just see it, the prosecutor arguing charges for a red ass mark...the defense defending it as panty lines or sitting-in-the-chair too long impressions. The jury sighing and wondering what the fuck they're all doing there.

Absurd.

As someone who has been in the BDSM lifestyle as both sub and Dom for many years, and as someone who has been raped, I have to tell you that CCBill's lumping of BDSM and rape in the same breath did not go down at all well in this household this morning :(

Its good that your rep is finally able to take a vacation after 5 years.

I'd like to as well. Except I can no longer afford to. I keep losing revenue to my websites because I'm no longer allowed to link to many former traffic sources.

Thanks CCBill.

It seems that everyone is missing a major issue here. What, exactly, is the content CCBill is objecting to - which link(s), or banner(s); does bondagedirectory.com have to remove so that CCBill would drop their objections? Is it, for example, just meninpain.com (example purposes only), or is it multiple sites? Is it CCBill's position that ANY sexual conduct while a person is in bondage is "rape?" What, exactly, is this "rape" content that we should be avoiding?

Does anyone else think its strange that CCBill is only objecting to links to bondagedirectory.com - a site owned by Cybernet Entertainment, a company that does huge processing volumes through a pair of CCBill competitors, Jettis and Paycom? Why is no other link list or directorybeing singled out for this treatment, when there are literally hundreds of fetish and BDSM directories that probably link to the same "offensive" content?