Paxum Issue Again
 

So,

I submitted my renewal of my card last August 19 supposed to be before they process it THEY must inform their customer what are things needed before accepting it. However, they let me wait for 10 days before they update the status and now they want me to take a picture of myself holding my ID's, Additional ID which I have submitted three different ID's last three years. I don't think this is acceptable.

Maybe it has something to do with your look. :)

ya they ask me to sent picture of myself and holding my id

Funny how they are looking for securities when they can offer none themselves.

Fuck off back to hell then...

Their service, their rules.
I can sort of understand why they do it, I could have anyone's id, claim it is me and get a card.

If you have a bank account attached to the account, that's different, but if you want just a card. How do they know you are who you claim?

If you did this

https://gfy.com/image.php?u=197889&dateline=1369898138

then their request seems to be legit :helpme

at least you are not being asked for a notarized utility bill...

:1orglaugh yea this is where i told someone to F.O.

it sucks, as i liked using Paxum, and been using them since the whole Epass mess.

and it's weird that proof of address in my native language (Hebrew) was fine 3 years ago, but now it needs to be translated and notarized. and all of that happened after they charged me for a new card.

support seems to be almost automated, so hopefully Ruth could help me out when she gets back from her vacation.

I have to agree, their service is just so dreadful. It took them 18 days to return a message to me saying that my docs were unacceptable after saying they were good to go.

Now they want a utility bill with the address of my business office BUT in my personal name. Why.... _WHY_ would i have a utility bill in my personal name at my business office? I don't pay the bill personally, for my business.... my business does.

So frustrating.

Please email me your account [email protected] so i can look into this. We do not require translated documents.

Regards
Chris

For the record they are dreadful with compliance issues also.

I have to contact Ruth directly with regard to infringing websites accepting Paxum.

With every other payment provider I deal directly with the risk management team.

It's really not the place of a sales person to deal with risk management issues - it's a conflict really.

I dropped Paxum about 18 months ago. Nothing personal, I just think these virtual cards are a hangover from the heady days. It'll all end in tears. So I'm quite happy to do checks or bank transfers.

I'm not really sure where this is coming from. We have taken every complaint you have sent us seriously. Not sure how that is a conflict when the things you have sent ruth have always been taken care of.

An account that I reported over a year ago still appears to be active.

You may take the matters seriously but you do not communicate your actions very well, if at all and even when I report a site that is using Paxum to accept payments it is put back on us to tell you the account holders account address as you appear not to have the resources to perform your own investigations.

Secondly, it should not be the role of a sales person to handle risk management issues - it's a conflict of roles - you may not like that fact but there is very good reason that established payment services have completely separate risk management teams and why they deal with us independently of the sales force of the organisation.

Furthermore, Paxum has undertaken to resolve particular issues relating to the way it's systems operate, yet two years after such undertaking this has still not been done. I won't go into public details however am happy to refer back to the undertakings in private communication.

In short you need a properly experienced risk manager who can directly deal with organisations such as ours who is (a) not associated with sales thereby avoiding perceptions of conflict and (b) is able to resolve issues with adequate response timeframes and notify us of outcomes.

Edit: Please don't take this as criticism of Ruth. Ruth is lovely but she is not the person we should be dealing with for these matters.

Funds are in motion, don't worry.

Email sent.

Email sent.

thanks

Dear god - I am sending an emergency tube of KY - I hope it will help you get your head out of your ass...

Do you understand how arrogant that sounds?....

2.00pm yesterday

9.15pm today

People wonder why I give Paxum a hard time - it's because they're great at promises and crap at delivering on them

my problem with paxum is that i have spent all my money last weekend and i am without paxum funds at the moment :upsidedow

What? Infringing web site? Do you mean copyright infringement or something? How is that payment processor's concern in the first place? Isn't that your concern and duty to enforce your copyrights?

A note about law. A payment processor (or any other service provider to an infringing site) is what is known as a third party to infringement and thus liable.

True that it's a bit annoying to get approved, but Paxum's so easy to use on a day-to-day basis that it is well worth jumping through a few hoops.

Could I have a quote about that law? They are liable for what? What country's law that would be anyways?

I haven't before even heard about that paymen't processor could be any party in some copyright issues, like it's not storing the files or anything.

There are several laws that apply.

Firstly there is the Berne Convention.

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=283698

Then each country (in some cases states) enacts it's own IP and Copyright laws.

In the USA there is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act and this applies the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

"The bill, called SOPA, would allow the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders to seek court orders requiring online advertising networks, payment processors and other organizations to stop payments to websites and Web-based services accused of copyright infringement."

http://www.pcworld.com/article/24401..._a_primer.html

"Congress has been trying to find ways to deal with this issue but has yet to enact any legislation. In the meantime, the Obama administration has encouraged members of the private sector to take voluntary measures to address intellectual property and copyright infringement online. One recent effort is a “best practices” system for payment system operators — think credit card companies and PayPal. Below, we will examine the “who’s” and the “how’s” of these best practices, and how they relate to musicians."

http://futureofmusic.org/article/art...t-infringement

Seems that in US, unless you have court order, it's just based on voluntarily acts.


"Payment Processor Responsibilities Following a Rightsholder Complaint

Under the agreement, the payment processors will investigate claims made by rightsholders to make sure that merchants aren’t processing illegal transactions with legitimate payment systems.

The credit card companies will ask for evidence from the merchant to show that they are not selling infringing goods. If the merchant cannot provide such evidence, or the payment processor reasonably determines that the merchant is selling infringing products, they will tell the merchant to prevent such activity in the future.

If the merchant does not heed these warnings than the payment processor will suspend or terminate service to that merchant for U.S. account holders. The payment processors will have procedures in place for a merchant to dispute any complaints made against it. And, if a merchant provides evidence that they are not infringing, the payment processor can ask the rightsholder for an agreement that would reimburse the payment processor for any costs associated with resolving the dispute. "

http://futureofmusic.org/article/art...t-infringement

So based on these voluntarily acts, the first thing is not to close account at the first place. Also, they are not liable for the copyright issue, but might be required to take some actions ordered by court.

I cover 100% of everything I need to do before I answer anyone. Sorry it is not as fast as you would like.

When it comes to possible termination of a client I do more than just take something at face value.

I forgot to mention that I didn't ask copyright laws in general, I asked about this third party issue regarding payment processors.

What I tend to do, you may find this helpful, is email the person I have promised something to and say, look I can't meet the deadline I set myself but I'm still on it and I'll be in touch by the middle of next week or something along those lines.

Also, yes, I can fully understand why an experienced risk management team in a dynamic and innovative payment processing company like Paxum can take over 14 months to decide whether or not to terminate an account.

On a more serious note, please don't take this personally, when it comes to risk management you're amateurs. You need to step up because right now you're helping pirates hurt the very customers you're trying to gain and retain. :2 cents:

It's a complex issue, I've given you all the information you need to go and research it for yourself. Laws are typically complex, which is why people pay lawyers to help them understand them :2 cents:

So you have nothing. Just some "it's complicated". I bet you haven't even read the law.

I am going to be a bit rude, but why you don't deal with your own shit, instead of throwing it on your payment processor's head? Get into action yourself, get the court order and get it done. You are now using other parties to drive your causes, as it's more cheaper and easier undoubtedly. Nothing wrong with that, but don't expect people to jump on your command.

I have studied some law, including how to study law. Just show me the law and I will understand it.

I have quoted to you the Acts and treaties as they apply to the USA, so I am sure if you have studied law then you will also know how to use Google.

I did use Google and Googled you the results about copyrights and payment processors. Didn't you read it?

You quoted (linked) some general law about copyrights. Law is divided into sections and subsections, so that you don't have to read all the shit everytime you need some information about some particular thing. Just tell the article, section, subsection, etc. I am not going to read all that shit, it would take from hours to days. Come on..

Having studied law and stating that you know how to understand law then it surprises me you cannot look at indexes of treaties and legislation to find relevant sections.

For the benefit of your obvious lack of research skills and the interest of others here are the basics.

Secondary Liability

Secondary liability, in relation to IP law, comes about when a third party directly or indirectly facilitates the infringement of IP by providing services to the infringer, thereby contributing to, inducing, facilitating or otherwise contributing to the ability of the infringer to infringe.

In the US there are two types of secondary liability - Vicarious liability and Contributory Liability.

Examples of third party infringement or Secondary Liability might include:

- hosting infringing content
- providing payment services to a merchant selling or providing paid access to infringing content
- republishing, linking to (search engines), advertising (ad networks) infringing content

There are many more examples but these are the ones that apply in the case of a payment processor or search engine.

Google, on it's search engine, does not directly infringe upon the IP rights of of a rights holder with a site it links to, however it does carry Secondary Liability and therefore undertakes to remove links to content from it's search results when an infringed party makes a complaint.

Paypal, on it;'s payment platform, does not directly infringe upon the IP rights of content that is infringing on a site it processes payments for, however it does carry Secondary Liability, and therefore undertakes to remove payment processing from a site selling access to infringing content.

This is the law, there are several US precedents in this area, the most well known being

Gershwin Publishing Corporation, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc. 1971.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...3/1159/246236/

I looked into indexes, but even that seemed as too much work as you should have brought up the quote, not me.

Also, the thing that you quoted didn't say anything about what their liability is. And after blaming me for that index stuff, you didn't provide some index information even now. Or even source, as the quote doesn't seem to be from the linked page.

In layman's terms and in one simple sentence, as that's probably all you'll understand.

If you help someone carry out an infringing act in relation to IP law then you can be sued.


I didn't quote it, I wrote it from my understanding of US law relating to secondary liability in relation to copyright and IP.

Okay, so you basically made up things and you didn't even make it clear that those are purely your own thoughts.

Yeah, you can always sue people for whatever you like, but the end result is a totally different matter. Not to mention that payment processor's normal business relations done with honest intentions, bring no liability regarding their clients suspected copyright issues. Court can order some actions for them to take, but they are still not liable for their customer, only liable to fulfill the court's order.

Are you thick or just being obtuse ?

Here's some light reading for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gershwi...s_Mana gement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_liability

I'm sure you can handle Wikipedia articles. If not then it's useless wasting anymore keyboard strokes on your obviously intellectually challenged brain.

I already read the second one and after glimpsing the first one, I find nothing that supports your views towards this matter. Please quote if you find something that supports your view. And by quoting in mean using " and ".

Actually payment processors are completely liable for the actions of their customers in many cases.

Money Laundering
Copyright Infringement
Fraud
Obtaining Property by Deception
Obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception
Tax Avoidance
Aiding Terrorism
Funding Terrorism
and many other areas.

All payment service providers have strict Know Your Customer requirements in the USA and many other countries, these are in order to enforce such things as listed above.

Then you obviously didn't read them or alternatively, I think this is more likely, you're stupid.

We are talking about copyright issues in here, not funding terrorism.

Then use fucking quoting. It isn't that hard. "Like this."

Copyright was on the second line of my list.

What would you like me to quote ? There are pages and pages of law concerning this issue and you can't even comprehend a simple Wikipedia article.

I'm not wasting my time on your obviously obtuse, astoundingly incomprehensible level of stupidity. In short you are one neuron short of a synapse.

Oh yeah, you had some own list. Do you want to see my shopping list too? As fucking relevant to this subject than your lists.

I read it (article), understood it, and found nothing supporting your claims. And your inability to quote just proves that there is nothing to quote to support your claims.

I too guess that this was in here. We disagree, world doesn't end to there. Let's move on.