Why don't CC billers stop processing for sites with......
 

USER SUBMITTED CONTENT! The way I see it it's a very big risk for them too.
There's no model releases and valid 2257 docs with User Submitted content.
There's no real way to ensure the submitted content is legal.
There's no good way to ensure the person submitting the content is authorized to do so
It's the number 1 excuse people use when getting caught for copyright violations.

Solution....Don't allow sites to use user submitted content. It's safer for
the Processing companies and it's better for the webmasters, better for
affiliates, better for business......

So what's keeping them to not instate such rule......Discus

Well I don't think that's the case for user submitted content and especially
not for Billing processors. I think it's costing more than it makes. Apart from
the risk when sites have illegal content. Sites that get closed or take off
chargebacks, etc, etc

back to the top

Wow the responses are overwhelming :1orglaugh

All I can say is...WRONG sorry dude but you are way ofgf on your thinking.:2 cents:

well, last I checked US laws don't apply to entire world. 2257 is pire BS that came out of united states. Tell me why would sites like picland.to have to comply with 2257? I know, most of those “user submitted” sites rip pictures from each other, but there are some real exhibitionist/swinger sites with thousands of contributors..

Well honestly, as far as I know how strict the billers are with regards to our content, I somehow don't understand how can ANY biller process for the user submitted content sites.

One as I believe to be a legit site with user submitted content is www.watchme.com , but that's a different model and anyone who wants to submit have to register first I assume, plus I also guess lots of the content is simply purchased home made content and they have licenses for that.

If you bill in the US 2257 applies to you....period. If you're content is illegal
you AND your biller are in trouble.....period. 2257 is an example, stolen
content is another and there's many more that could cause serious problems
for both the Billing processor as well as the site operators in question.

Think before you comment.....:2 cents:

Sites with valid amateur content have plenty options to stay clear
of these problems....They have model releases, contracts and proper
documentation for their content.

:2 cents:

Exactly but right now site operators can simply hide behind....Ooopps sorry
it was user submitted content....whether it's with copyright violations or
other types of illegal content.....and that could easily be prevented with
regulations giving by the billing processors.

offshore operations arent stuck to 2257... thus it being 'legal' to bill since its not 'illegal' to profit off of...

it IS a loophole...


but your question was pretty much answered right away...

what do you mean "bill in the US"? Now explain me how I bill in Saidi Arabia through password-by-phone where porn is illegal. Should I worry about going there next time (not that I'll ever go there).

Think before you write :2 cents:

First of all I was talking about CC billing processors, not password by phone.
Then if you use a US based billing processor you're selling your product in the
US so I assume you have to apply with US legislation.

Besides that I don't talk only about non compliant 2257 content. There's
many other types of illegal content....and I'm sure VISA doesn't like to get
slammed for billing to illegal content.

If you are a US resident and bill elsewhere you still fall under US jurisdiction.
Going offshore without changing residency doesn't excempt you from US law

which companies are running these sites in the US?

Essentially it’s the same thing. We’re talking about complying to rules and regulations (laws) of a certain country. Even if its CCBill EU different countries have different regulations. You’re Dutch right? We all know that pretty much anything goes where you at, but take Germany for example. I’ve got some e-mail from their agency telling me that I need to either cover the hooch because its not legal in Germany. What do u want me to do?

It's a misconception that anything goes in The Netherlands....it's perhaps
hard to legally go after from other countries than the Netherlands....but
if a site anywhere in the World has copyrighted content for example go
after their Billing processor and see how fast things get sorted.

What I'm trying to point out that it could be possible to at least reduce
fraud a little by simply stop allowing paysites to use user submitted content.
And there's enough reasons you can think of to justify such rule.

It won't be the solution to illegal content but it will reduce the option for
people to hide so easily behind the excuse.....Oh sorry that was user
submitted content....after they ripped half your content and used it on
their site and charge people for it.

:thumbsup

Ah, ok.. I think I see where we missed each others point. I’m talking about user submitted amateur sites where people send in their own home made videos, you’re talking about megarotic type of sites. Oh that shit shouldn’t be allowed for sure.

Yeah I mean mostly megarotic type of sites...but even with amateur submitted
content.....often people submit not their content but stuff they grabbed
from the net.....usually copyrighted stuff. There's sites who do it properly
by having them sign contracts and supply them with id's those aren't the
problem.....but there's too many loopholes that allows scammers to get away
with illegal ways of making money and hide behind a lame excuse which really
isn't so hard to prevent :thumbsup

Germany is way worse then US these days.

The lobby for use of the adult verification services has also its reason - now let's try not to be specific or someone will probably kill me:

HYPOTHETICALLY I have HEARD THAT one of the main people in the board that cares about the regulations has its share in the main provider of those "certified" AVS systems.

We just awaiting a decision if we will get unbanned from a blacklist for showing a piece of cock in one of the screenshots in our german tour...

At this moment we are banned from German search engines.

CCBill US yeah 2257 compliant, there is also CCBill EU which bills in Europe

Again, in EU stealing copyrighted content is just as illegal as in the US
2257 is just 1 of many examples of possibly illegal content.

:2 cents:

Yes, but that’s different from 2257.
2257 was made up to “protect” underage blah blah blah.. Here we are talking theft.
The other thing is asking Ids for amateur submission… I highly doubt that people will be willing to fork out their Ids just to submit their own home made video. Those guys are horny as hell but not stupid. You take any of those sites and ration of active submitter to wanker is 1/1000 .. You really think that 1 will come back to you if you request his ID with his personal information etc. Some of those guys are well respected people with jobs.. Maybe they go to church on Sunday and on Friday they fuck their friends in swinger clubs… Do you think they would want someone else to have their address and names to blackmail them?

Does it matter that they use CCBILL EU??
Just wondering if that is the work around!!

No it doesn't.....and certainly for the processing company.

They Steal it, it isn't the "real" person posting or submitting it.
Come on get real, have you seen these sites, or the ads leading to them.
These girls are underage....

Several sites are employing these things
What appears to be underage content!
Stolen content!
Content taken from dating sites, myspace, facebook.
NO 2257 records

http://www.realgf.com/galleries/s003...index5.php?id=
ccbill.com EU One Biller

http://galleries.adult-empire.com/52...3012/index.php
http://galleries.adult-empire.com Front Page Redirects
They were using MY Content. It has been Removed!
Biller --- http://www.standardpay.com/cs

http://www.nakedgfs.com/fhg/Nonnude/.../index.php?id=
CCBill EU is the designated E-ticket Supplier

http://real18girls.com/main.php
CCBill EU is the designated E-ticket Supplier

I know they do, but I'm talking about real sites that have real user submitted material.
Those sites that you just showed obviously using stolen material. some still have watermarks.