bulletinboardforum has balls, selling peoples content using ccbill
 

these guys really have balls

http://www.kingofbeaver.com/index.html

fucked up that ccbill would even allow that :disgust

he snubs his nose at everyone. proves my point that no one in the biz can unite to do anything. shit time warner alone harnessed his ass and got a judgement of 1.3 mil against him along with some other companies. we can't even get him to take down images. sad. i'm going to do my best to make his life miserable. we'll see what comes of it.

That's fucking insane? Has anyone reported this to CCBill?

Surprise, surprise. He still has AFF banners up.

Who's content is he selling? I don't recognize the sample vids.

yeah saw the aff banners, god the scum in this business never ends amazing me.

here is another possible chance to do the right thing aff

I don't know the people at CCBill but I'm sure someone here does. Anyone willing to hit them up and ask them how they are allowed to process a site that is selling memberships to stolen content?

about the same as facialforum.com ccbill bills for them and they have ALOT of stolen content, it might not be stolen but sure as fuck looks as it is.

Interesting find.

I'd bet money they have licensed content inside kingofbeaver, I mean, they'd have to be complete fucking retards not to.

Brad

Anyone get comments from CCBill yet?

He is a retard. He's proven it over the years.

You mean like being retards for stealing everyone's content and advertising other sponsors with it? :winkwink:

From his CCBill Join Page:

"All proceeds from your subscription go towards new content at BulletinboardForum.com (and of course, KOB!). Don't be a cheapass, get the 30 day membership and support your favorite video site!"

:1orglaugh

talking about selling other people's stuff using ccbill reminded me:
homemadevids.net

No surprise there. Looks like AdultFriendFinder has no problem whatsoever doing business with content thieves.

Isnt AFF the only program that DONT approve honest webmasters

innovative business model.

If you believe that site is using your content without your permission, please review our DMCA process, as an isp we are required by law to follow the DMCA

http://businesscenter.ccbill.com/htm...copyright.html

As a processor, do you review your clients' sites on a regular basis to ensure everything is on the up and up, so to speak?

we review what we can; bad words, bad content, members area works, etc. however, if we see, lets say, a picture on your site, we cannot determine who retains the copyright on it or whether the site owner had the proper license for that specific content. That?s the very dilemma the DMCA was created to solve. It generally works very well and again, we are required to follow it.

Understandable. But if you came across a site filled with content branded with other companies' watermarks (Bangbros, Juggcash, Nasty Dollars, etc), would you give the site the benefit of the doubt and process for them? Or would you request at least some sort of proof of ownership?

I'm not saying this is the case for the aforementioned site, as I've yet to see it's members area. I'm asking about your policy in general.

whos content is being used there?

ccbill has no idea if the content was given to the site in question unless it is challenged by DMCA. they are not affiliates and program owners like we are. with as much content as is given out there is no possible way for them to keep up with it. they do actively shut people off if dmca'd by the copyright holders. we are on top of everything way more than them and we know an infringer immediately whereas in their case, alot of times because of the way we all work together, we need to inform them, such as in this case. i'd be willing to bet that he won't be processing with ccbill much longer. one person fiing a dmca with them should take care of him.

We do not pretend to be privy to the agreements webmasters have between themselves. It is very feasible that a site can legitimately contain content watermarked under an unrelated domain. A dmca notification requires immediate action within 24 hours and works very well. I have not heard any complaints from the people that utilize it, it is pretty efficient.

Which is a very tolerant point of view, but isn't it also somewhat naive and in fact the very basis on which Google/YouTube is about to be sued by Viacom?

If I put up a site which displays content bearing a couple of hundred different watermarks from sponsors who are not being advertised, then anyone in the industry, however peripherally, knows exactly the business model on which my site is based. Surely it cannot be acceptable for anyone who wants to be considered legitimate by the industry at large, to hide behind the inadequacies of the law and refuse to act unless specific instances of copyright theft are reported?

Anyway, what is usually the next step (as we have seen with AFF's handling of similar situations)? The site doesn't lose its affiliate status or whatever, it is given time to remove the specific content which was reported. It complies and carries on with business as usual, still based entirely or in large part on stolen content. It may even replace the reported content with other material from the same source!

I completely understand what you're saying and I'm not questioning your DMCA process at all. I have no doubts that it is effective. I'm just wondering if the whole process is cut and dry (ie. as long as it's not CP, beastiality, etc), does the site get automatically approved? Or is there a judgment call made at some point.

In other words, hypothetically speaking, if I grab all the content available in the Bangbros or Juggcash webmasters area (which is a significant amount of content) and simply upload it under another domain, will you give me the benefit of doubt and process for me until you get a DMCA complaint? Or at some point, would someone over there go "Hey, this looks fishy. Let's ask this girl if she has the right to use this content"?

i agree with much of what you are saying. however, ccbill is no aff. this guy will be gone in no time. all it takes is one copyright holder. it would be me if our stuff was in the area that he is profiting from, but unfortunately for me he was just using our stuff on the outside to promote GGW and we saw how that got handled. this little shit head sure knows how to irritate people.

ccbill is not aff thats for sure.

ahhhh i see what you are saying now.

That to me would be the process of a company which was seriously trying to play it straight. CCBill are not strangers to this business and they regularly exercise judgement and discretion, hence the "we can only act on a DMCA notice" line really rang hollow and was a big disappointment.

I have the same question..

I can create a site that would be so burdensome on the content owners to try and complain or monitor it would be fruitless..

Am i too understand ccbill checks no validity of content before processing for sites ?

yeah, except you have morals and decency.

you respect content owners. you are a good guy. :) :thumbsup

wow not this shit head again . This guy getting on everyones last nerve all ready. Anyone gonna pay him a visit?

let me make some points, i should have elaborated in my previous post. Please excuse me if i am repeating some of what i had posted earlier.

We are not in a position to determine who retains the copyright of the content processed within our clients sites. With the dmca, action is taken within 24 hours. Repeat infringers accounts are permanently shut down and blacklisted. That said, we have a thick book of rules that accounts must follow in order to stay in good standing and with our experience, we have a pretty good record of making decisions on what sites we are comfortable processing for and which ones we are not. Let me stress that we review sites on a case by case basis.

Moreover, the site referenced above, when I saw this thread, I had sent over to our policy review department to check out.

I hope that CCBill decides to take a look at this site and start asking questions. It didn't take long for us to turn up enough stolen or misdirected content as to make it clear that this site is packed (at least on the outside) with content used without permission.

I am tempted to buy a membership just to see what the inside looks like, I figure it very likely that I will find a huge collection of stolen content.

What I am wondering is if the content is actually hosted on the domain, or if in fact these cheapasses have the balls to put members area content on a file sharing host as well.

also curious as to what exactly you do when a dmca is filed.. do you just ask them to follow the dmca or do you stop processing for them.. because i can hire some indians to upload new content every few minutes, unless every content provider has someone getting it pulled as fast as im putting it up..

edit - i see corvette answered my question .

i guess we will see what happens in this case that should be obvious grounds for removal.

guys, i will post a reference to this here, but other than that, im going to bed, been a long day

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

Great answer, corvette. I respect your company very much and I just wanted to make sure you weren't giving thieves a free pass.

If CCbill were to just drop a site because the THOUGHT it was a copyright violation, they would themselves be illegally acting as a copyright holder/rep. Which is why has corvette stated, they have to follow DCMA and can't just act on a whim. It's a bit of a tricky area.

They are a business. They have the right to refuse any customer. Though I don't know the DCMA off by heart, I'd be amazed if it somehow took away that right.

All I was asking was at what point, if any, do they make a judgment call. There are loads of reasons why you might find someone else's content within a paysite ("featured friend" on a solo site, for example) and it'd be a mess if they canceled accounts on a whim. But there's a line, and it's nowhere near being a fine one, between using someone else's content legitimately and reselling someone else's content without permission.

If there was no "quality control", then hypothetically, I could easily start a site tomorrow composed solely of gigs and gigs of Juggcash videos, sell memberships for $10/month and make a killing. It'd be months before Juggcash caught on (if they did at all).

lol..... keep dreaming dude

Another great response by CCBill, as expected :)

Brad