AfterDawn Forums
These messages are comments to this news item:

Paypal freezes accounts, bans Usenet providers

news article released on:

Just weeks after they began banning file-sharing hosts, Paypal has extended the bans to major Usenet services, citing piracy concerns. Outside of banning the providers, the company has also frozen the assets in the accounts. A few of the Usenet providers banned are XSUsenet, EasyUsenet and Usenet4U with smaller services being banned, as well. The providers can now no longer accept ...

Read full article

This discussion thread has 37 messages.

#26
Originally posted by vbdragon:
"Merchants must provide PayPal with free access to their service, so PayPal's Acceptable Us Policy department can monitor content."

It seems that even if you don't use PayPal, they want access to all customer's "content".
So, any merchant that uses PayPal has given access to their services to PayPal. Irrespective of any Privacy Laws and without a Federal or State warrant!!

What Federal Court or Federal Bill gave PayPal the duty of controlling & enforcing all copywrite laws??

There goes some more civil liberties!
You just got bent over & you didn't even feel a thing!
Actually PayPal would rather not be monitoring merchants. They would rather be making money than fighting customers. They can care less about the buyers right now. Due to liability laws, financial businesses are expected to know that their customers are in compliance with the law or the law typically comes down on the financial processor. It doesn't matter if you are visa, alert pay, PayPal, or any online remittance, they are freaking out about the file sharers because of illicit content. All in all if the file sharers go to court they can be held as defendants, and they are not going to pay multi-millions if they can help it.
AfterDawn Advertisement
#27
Originally posted by plissken13x:
Originally posted by vbdragon:
"Merchants must provide PayPal with free access to their service, so PayPal's Acceptable Us Policy department can monitor content."

It seems that even if you don't use PayPal, they want access to all customer's "content".
So, any merchant that uses PayPal has given access to their services to PayPal. Irrespective of any Privacy Laws and without a Federal or State warrant!!

What Federal Court or Federal Bill gave PayPal the duty of controlling & enforcing all copywrite laws??

There goes some more civil liberties!
You just got bent over & you didn't even feel a thing!
Actually PayPal would rather not be monitoring merchants. They would rather be making money than fighting customers. They can care less about the buyers right now. Due to liability laws, financial businesses are expected to know that their customers are in compliance with the law or the law typically comes down on the financial processor. It doesn't matter if you are visa, alert pay, PayPal, or any online remittance, they are freaking out about the file sharers because of illicit content. All in all if the file sharers go to court they can be held as defendants, and they are not going to pay multi-millions if they can help it.

Whats funny tho only those with millions will lose anything.

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/
#28
Originally posted by sternrulez:
This story actually surprises me, with Paybay being the money grubbing-bastards that they are, I thought they'd be thrilled to take their cut. They don't have a problem with collecting Ebay auction fees, then hitting the seller up again for Paypal fees, and they call OTHERS pirates? lmao! (for the uninitiated, Ebay bought out Paypal a while ago...)
They took their cut for a decade now :)

#29
I'd be interested in proof that financial companies are liable for illegal activities of their customers if they don't have proof the activities are illegal. A good friend of mine who used to bar tend at a strip club said credit cards were constantly used to pay for prostitution. I don't think I've seen a story yet about Mastercard getting dragged into court over this kind of usage. This would likely be different if you KNEW or had proof the transaction was illegal and did nothing about it, but that's not what Paypal is doing. Use of Usenet does not automatically constitute an illegal act.
#30
Originally posted by IguanaC64:
I'd be interested in proof that financial companies are liable for illegal activities of their customers if they don't have proof the activities are illegal. A good friend of mine who used to bar tend at a strip club said credit cards were constantly used to pay for prostitution. I don't think I've seen a story yet about Mastercard getting dragged into court over this kind of usage. This would likely be different if you KNEW or had proof the transaction was illegal and did nothing about it, but that's not what Paypal is doing. Use of Usenet does not automatically constitute an illegal act.
Ask and you shall receive. The law is part of the Regulatory Compliance/BSA/AML Act. If anyone here has ever worked for a financial institution in the US you should be no stranger to this. Basically, it entails that if illegal activity is discovered you must report it, and you MUST insure that your customers are within good standing (legal). I have included a link to an overview of a Compliance/BSA/AML Government site, but there are many of them in detail if you Google. Let me segue to what happens with PayPal. If you are a business that are prone to court cases, or media attention....they will attempt to distance themselves away from you as they do not want to be involved nor want to be named as a defendant in a court case. I stress be named as a defendant in a court case. File sharers are nothing new here, if you remember you could use Paypal back in day to pay for limewire. Limewire ended up committing suicide before they had a chance to move away, but the concept is the same. There is a lot of debate about the legalities of who has the rights to the files, and is it legal with these services. One country it may be legal, and another it may be illegal. They have to abide by all jurisdictions. These companies are all big $$$ companies, and they would love to keep and this is the reason why they have lasted this long with them. I willing to bet that they got 1 supeona too many and this is where we are now. Anyone that has worked for a financial institution of any kind will tell you when the lawsuits come out they tend to try and cut off the money. Unfortunately, Paypal gets the whipping boy treatment when they never "out" the reason for the decision because what company wouldn't want to take your money?

http://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/d...ML_Man_2010.pdf
#31
While I didn't know the specific laws that governed their actions, I knew they existed. If you know someone is doing something illegal, it's your legal responsibility to report it.

It seems, in this case they are going well beyond their legal requirements that you outlined to do so. They have gone beyond reporting. I'm not sure what in the laws you stated gives them the right to do this. Their responsibilities should end at reporting them and stopping activity...not siezing their assets and demanding access to confidential data.
#32
Originally posted by plissken13x:
Originally posted by IguanaC64:
I'd be interested in proof that financial companies are liable for illegal activities of their customers...
Ask and you shall receive. The law is part of the Regulatory Compliance/BSA/AML Act....

http://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/d...ML_Man_2010.pdf
Just my 2 cents:
Just like Paypal, it happen to Western-Union 1 1/2 years ago.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 27 Nov 2012 @ 16:07

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
#33
Didn't Western Union get slammed because of the rampant consumer fraud? Western Union seemed to be doing zero due diligence. I can understand Paypal not wanting to follow Western Union's example, but they've gone from doing due diligence to active policing (in a way that coincidentally nets them a lot of free cash (asset seizure)...whether legimately or not).
#34
Originally posted by IguanaC64:
Didn't Western Union get slammed because of the rampant consumer fraud? Western Union seemed to be doing zero due diligence. I can understand Paypal not wanting to follow Western Union's example, but they've gone from doing due diligence to active policing (in a way that coincidentally nets them a lot of free cash (asset seizure)...whether legimately or not).
+ and most for supporters funding terrorist groups around the world: "New laws" :)
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 27 Nov 2012 @ 18:04

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
#35
Haha...yeah...I noticed a LOT of mentions about these laws being used to fight terrorism in the BSA/AML link above. Paypal is using what seems to be mostly an anti-terrorism law to seize assets of any company they suspect of doing something shady. I'm sure Al Qaeda has puppet Usenet providers as fund raising fronts for terrorism (they're so much more profitable than growing poppy flowers for drugs).
#36
Everything is about after 9-11 and "The New Laws" to control the people into a "like" police state fashion and kill competition on anything, around the world: GREED

My Opinion:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A4PGrjUCQAEYK65.jpg:large

CIA Created Afghan Heroin Trade:
| http://bit.ly/Shm7M5
American War Contractors [Video]
http://ti.me/Xu2hBl
Afghanistan [Photos]
http://publicintelligence.net/us-afghan...py-fields-2012/
http://publicintelligence.net/more-phot...in-afghanistan/
http://publicintelligence.net/even-more...in-afghanistan/
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 27 Nov 2012 @ 19:07

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
#37
Years ago I saw right thru them, decided this is not for me, am glad I never got involved.
This discussion thread has been automatically closed, as it hasn't received any new posts during the last 180 days. This means that you can't post replies or new questions to this discussion thread.

If you have something to add to this topic, use this page to post your question or comments to a new discussion thread.