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?

No one knows for sure just how many link sites CCBill is attacking this way. I mentioned the latest issue concerning BondageDirectory.com because its both the latest concern and one of the most prominent sites of its kind.

But your point about Cybernet Entertainment using CCBill's competitors is definitely food for thought. It wouldn't surprise me if this attack was aimed directly at them.

I am making an assumption that might well not be valid; CCBill may be having issues with several link lists, and this is the only one known and being discussed to this point. But just saying that the bondage market has to be concerned with rape is one thing; knowing what CCBill thinks of as rape would be much more helpful. Again, not only is the content they found to be "rape" not described, there is nothing said about what links and/or banners that bondagedirectory.com could remove to be within CCBill's rules. Of course this is going to raise some questions.

It would be good with clear definitions for sure.

Another vote for clearer definitions here. At least then I could plan shoots around what CCBill will process and not have it down to the personal opinion of someone who works for them.

Documents and Notes re CCBill and Content
 

I tried to submit a researched response, but the forum program says I can't post URLs until I've posted 30 times here. So here's an expurgated version of my message.

--------------

SoCalKev asks "which link(s), or banner(s); does bondagedirectory have to remove so that CCBill would drop their objections?"

These words appear in BondageDirectory's first page metatags, and there are a few website listings to match:

"torture, pain, pierce, piercing, golden showers, wartersports, fistfuck, fist, facial, fisting, fistfucking, facials"

Here's an excerpt from a September 2005 email notice that surrenderedsoul received from CCBill:

"Violating Offsite Links (Underage Diaper Rape Bodily Excretions )
bondagedirectory
bondagegirls dot net
fetbot "

Here's an excerpt from a May 2006 email notice that ashleyrenee received from CCBill:

"AUP Violations
Violating Offsite Links (Underage Rape Bodily Excretions )
bondagedirectory "

CCBill contacted her a day later and told her to unlink bondagegirls dot net.

Regarding content:

I am very concerned about Rosie's report that "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."

If sites are trying hard to comply with CCBill but being thwarted, CCBill needs to try to come up with a way to be consistent. I agree with SilentKnight's statement in this thread that there are "glaring inconsistencies" and this is a problem since webmasters are genuinely TRYING to comply when CCBill contacts them.

Other sites' situations:

SurrenderedSoul reported that their content was approved by CCBill, then about 9 months later they were told to remove a bunch of the content that had previously been okayed.

AshleyRenee dot com reports that during their CCBill review last week, content that was previously okay is now unacceptable. She has removed many sets from her site that CCBill told her to take down. She's made an enormous effort to get into compliance but she noted that from day to day, depending on which representative she talks to, the exact interpretations of the AUP change in regards to the content on her site.

Regarding categorizations of violations:

A photoset where my boyfriend came up behind Ashley, and grabbed and tied her up, was rated unacceptable under the "rape" designation because coming up behind someone to grab them looks non consensual.

So, readers of this thread who were wondering over the "no rape" rule, you see that CCBill staff apply the "no rape" categorization broadly.

Ashley has made a herculean effort to get into total compliance with CCBill, phoning them for feedback at every step and assuring them she will do anything they say.

Regarding CCBill's exact AUP:

CCBill's Acceptable Use Policies dated June 2005:
businesscenter dot ccbill dot com slash html_forms slash aupt.html

The above link does not quite match a version one website received in an email from CCBill in September 2005. Here's a summary of the categories that were described in the September 2005 email. (I compiled this summary back then, to keep in my records so that I could refer to it):

--------

Cannot have on webpages/site and cannot link to such webpages/sites.
Any and all depictions and/or actual occurrences and/or content and/or marketing and/or references to:
1. Underage: Provocative and/or Non-Provocative; including Hentai or animations.
2. Rape: Rape, involuntary sex or forced sex; in all mediums including Hentai or animations.
3. Bodily Excretions: Scat/fecal matter, person to person watersports, and/or a woman's period or menstruation.
4. Extreme Violence: Acts of extreme violence, and/or depictions of extreme violence in all mediums including Hentai or animations. Extreme pain and/or implying and/or suggesting extreme pain. Flogging (severe beating).
5. Bloodletting or Bloodshed. Consumption of Blood. Self-mutilation. Cannibalism. Depiction of gore inflicted by oneself and/or another individual or group. 'Snuff' or 'Fantasy Snuff' content and/or content involving or implying death or serious bodily injury. Autopsy photos.
6. Diaper Fetish: Diapers, Diaper Fetish and/or sites which depict models in diapers in all mediums including Hentai or animations; Sexual or Non-Sexual.

Forbidden on CCBill's website but not mentioned in the email list at the time: Bestiality, Incest.

Not forbidden on CCBill's website and not in the email list, but forbidden according to CCBill staff in phone calls: Chloroform (chloro, chloroformed), Kidnap (kidnapped, kidnapping), Ransom.

-----------------------

Regarding "Extreme Violence":

A drawing on Ashley's site of a damsel near a saw blade was categorized as such and therefore deleted. So bondage sites must keep in mind that old fashioned damsel in distress peril, even where no one is physically harmed and rescue is implied, that still qualifies as Extreme Violence and is not acceptable to CCBill.

CCBill is operating within the U.S. and they have to keep U.S. Visa, Mastercard, and their merchant bank/s happy or they'll be history. So webmasters complaining to CCBill, that won't help the situation. If a photographer or model wants to express their fantasies of bondage roleplay, bondage peril, or bondage conflict, they'll probably just have to switch to overseas billing services. :(

Until the overseas billing services decide our fantasies are obscene, too...! ;)

Firstly, welcome to the forum Lorelei. Good to have your voice here on GFY.

Hopefully Ron and the folks at CCBill will take the time and effort to respond to your well-written and detailed post.

I'd still appreciate some further explanation/clarifications from CCBill....or better yet some positive steps they may be taking to address the issues and taking corrective action.

It appears that MasterCard is getting squeemish about violent sex, gag, suffocation, rape, etc.. and content that is BDSM is getting caught up in the "bad" category.

Here is the case where private sector can enforce what the government cannot.

While you could have a first amendment argument to the "fantasy" or "simulated" aspect of the sexual depictions, those don't hold up with the plastic kingpins.

No need to worry about 2257 or obscenity, MC and VISA can do it by simply requiring the acquring Banks and the IPSP's to conform to their (new) rules.


Fight the female body inspectors!

Update - CCBill/BondageDirectory
 

Bondage Directory contacted CCBill this week and offered to bring their site into compliance so that CCBill-using sites would be able to continue linking to Bondage Directory.

As of today, Bondage Directory altered their site and metatags so that CCBill would take them off the banned-list.

--Lorelei

Give it time:mad:

Lorelei:

Thanks for the response. The first issue that I noticed is that your explanation of why bondagedirectory.com was under scrutiny does not match up to the concerns expressed by the CCBill CEO, unless fisting is equivalent to rape in their eyes. It would be interesting to hear exactly what CCBill's interpretation of this is; rape implies a nonconsensual act, and obviously not all fisting is, whether it is allowable or not.

If I am understanding you correctly, CCBill does not allow sites to use the words torture and pain??? If putting them in the metatags is a violation, obviously putting them in the site text is as well. I would imagine that every BDSM site on the Internet uses those words, even if its just "tickle torture." The "extreme pain" thing is so subjective it makes my head hurt; what, exactly, does this mean? You can show flogging, but it can't be "extreme" - again, what is that line? Obviously, showing any blood would be a bright line, but what about welts and bruises? If the bottom winces or groans, is it extreme?

While it is good to know that CCBill is apparently not singling out any particular site, it is pretty clear that the policies and standards there are far from uniform. Having been through a similar situation, I know what it is like to call a billing company compliance department and have the rules change from day to day, depending on which compliance officer was asked the question. The only thing that is certain is that the rules are only going to get more restrictive here in the US.