well billers do it, im surprised netbilling doesnt (even tho they're not a biller), and i wouldnt compare netbilling to nats..

ccbill doesn't process either, they use banks and a few of them. Outsider POV they are a credible gateway as well it seems, right?

florida is good for 3 things. Latinas, white trash, and humidity.
bottom line,
duke

CC Bill has their own merchant accounts and are indeed a 3rd party biller. Not a gateway in the sense that netbilling is only a gateway. YOU have to apply for and get a merchant account. Which was pretty hard to do for many years because of the money you needed to have and run through the account. So mostly companies that had those kind of sales could do it.

I have been told that over the last year it has become a lot easier to get a merchant account and you don't need to have the capital that we had to have when we did it.
But again, I'm no expert.

CC Bill does just what the merchant banks do. They give you an anal probe. Netbilling doesn't and can't. It's none of their business really. Hell, I don't like it when the bank asks me all these damn questions. It kinda pisses me off because I feel like it's none of their business. But it's the way it's done.

with all that said I still don't get how it's obviously possible to set up sites with stolen, underage content and no one seems to care (of the parties involved). And no one seems to be responsible either.

and then we (as the industry) wonder that some people do their best to bring us down

Actually, here I think 'anal probe' is a little much, unless you have a real sensitive anus, Robbie. :D

What CCBill does is go over the site the first time you submit it. If they see any of the usual violations - beastiality, crushing a bug, whatever - they ask you to remove an image or a phrase (like 'virgin' or 'teen', I believe, plus others). Sometimes they blame it on Visa, sometimes not (Visa won't approve the site unless you remove blank).

But once you submit a site or two you get to know the deal and now they just approve in a day or two and rarely ask for changes. Once they approve the site they never look at it again and I asked why not once, when I was first submiting sites. The answer is obvious: millions of sites, who's going to police them?

Which is why, even IF Netbilling (or anyone) had THE most vigorous approval process there's no way a company could manually/visually/with a bot make sure a Webmaster didn't just insert the offending shit he took out until CCBill stopped looking. LOL (not my sites, for goodness sake!)

Epoch does the same, tho their criteria for what offends them is slightly differant.

no one cares because of the $

its only bad if you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar

No, I mean they actually gave me an anal probe.

But now that I think about it...I wonder why the two guys had baseball caps with "CC BILL" written in sharpie on them? And why did they insist on one guy taking pictures while the other guy was "probing" me? And then why did they switch places and start all over? And why did we all share a cigarette and snuggle afterwards?

Hmmmm.....

LOL No wonder you went merch.

No, CC Bill is still in my cascade. And I use them exclusively for my VOD. We put the merchant account with netbilling as the gateway first in the cascade for the paysites because CC Bill charges an outrageous percentage for processing because they handle everything on their end. We make a lot more money by having netbilling up front with CC Bill and Epoch as backups.

This is exactly what I want to explore for my company. Not only for the benefits you mentioned but because it's the only way I can see that I can control my own billing more. CCBill and Epoch are great companies but I know they must be...ahem, how can I put this? Taking their foot on-and-off the gas pedal, so to speak. Or perhaps it's their merch banks doing so (a more likely culprit). But I also assume that Epoch etc have what YOU must have: some control over the scrub rate, the put-through ratio, the fraud detection, etc etc etc. So, if they do, then it's reasonable to assume there are times when they ARE touching these aspects of billing. So why let them have that control and not me? :)

Of course, convenience goes a long way, and many affiliates will ONLY promote CCBill sites, so it's a trade-off, i guess. Or I suppose it might be possible to setup "double processing choices" for affiliates: let them send their traffic to CCBill Join pages, if they prefer, or to NATS pages, if they prefer.

damn, its like teen pussy rules the world or something according to how some guys act.

did someone say teen pussy?????????????????? where?????????? pics or it didnt happen.

We do inspect every site after it passes the Visa approval to make sure it is up to our standards as well.

and what is your position on accepting these gf type sites ? i am assuming by your statement netbilling looked at the site and approved it despite the fact the "theme" of the site involves unverified age content ?

Do you request the proper documents for all the content featured on the site?

They are a gateway, ccbill doesn't even do this, why would netbilling be responsible for doing that geeze lol

I just wanted to know what they meant by that statement:

"We do inspect every site after it passes the Visa approval to make sure it is up to our standards as well."

Policing the Internet:
Difficult thing
to do

- fatfoo

Epoch terminated my long standing account (and all rebills) because I refused to give them the IDs of two MILFs without covering up some private info so someone could not stalk them. I lost HUGE and had to close a program over the loss. Yet I see these GF sites flourishing with illegal content and some of them have girls who look like they are 13 years old, with the biggest names in the business hosting, billing and acting as a gateway for them. IMHO, you're all equally guilty.

So please, don't any of you tell me you can't ask for IDs for ANY model who looks to be too young. Epoch does. It should be your duty, as a company that works within this industry, to help keep things on the up and up.

EVERY host, billing company, gateway and webmaster knows most of these sites are using stolen content and there is a chance minors are on the sites. Yet everyone turns a blind eye. Why?

To say you don't support it is bullshit. Not only do you support it, but you profit from it. All of you. You're lying to yourself and the industry. Take some personal responsibly and ask for IDs of anyone you think looks young. Not only will you cut down on CP but you will also cut back on stolen content, another problem that no one else gives a shit about but has no problem profiting from.

If Epoch can do it, and they suck HUGE sweaty donkey balls, then the rest of you can do it. Take some personal responsibility for once and do the right thing. None of us need a court ruling to tell us what is right and wrong.

We do not bill for that site actually now.

Or maybe a wakeup call to monitor the sites you bill for? Ignorance isnt an excuse. One quick look at some of those sites it pretty clear the girls are underage. :2 cents:

And while I agree in part, I feel the need to point out the site we are talking about here is Kinkygfs.com:

http://kinkygfs.com/main.php

Now as someone who has purchased legal Ex-GF content, I see some content on this page that I know is legally shot.

Legally obtained may be another story- especially since their 2257 link now goes to a dead page (it didn't cross my mind to take a screen cap yesterday). Some of the producers of that content post here and me be able to verify if it was paid for, but that aside- for this url in particular- I don't see any red flags.

Remember, the gateway is just that. Netbilling isn't the merchant account. And this site reasonably appears to be legit.

Now let's take a look at another one:

http://www.myalternativegf.com/t1/index.php

Some of the chicks on this tour I know for a fact are underage. Juxtaposing 15 year old girls on a page that shows full penetration is just wrong. :disgust

I'd like to think that even to the untrained eye most can spot the difference, and as industry professionals I really hope everyone on this board sees it too. :2 cents:

We can police this by choosing who we do business with. I believe in Netbilling and I don't think they did anything wrong, so I will continue to support them, but I'll never work with the other guys because I've told them REPEATEDLY they've got kids on their site and they've done nothing about it. They hit me up once on ICQ around 5am EST and asked me which girls to remove and they never replied back. :disgust

What's your standards?

You are exactly right, I have seen most all the girls on the tour in gf content packs for sale as well and I would be willing to bet that the people they bought it from COULD post here to verify it if they wanted to. They really are pointing the finger at the wrong site for sure cause if you look at the other site you listed then it becomes VERY obvious that there is a HUGE difference in content that is VERY questionable. Btw their 2257 page is fine for me.

:helpme that wasn't the question


*hint the question was in the part you quoted :thumbsup 4 posts up

i can only say that our stuff that i see on Kinkygfs was legally bought from us and we also shot additional exclusive content for them. Of course including all 2257, IDs etc. :2 cents:

This is what I'm talking about. Thanks Ma. :thumbsup

Obviously they didn't buy all ther content, or we wouldn't be having this convo, but to those of us who know compiant ex-gf content this site appears - at least on the surface - to be doing things legit.

You should be banned and you should apologize. We all know what your intentions were by starting this thread.

It's the unprofessional clients that hinder upstanding businesses not the other way around.

Thank you. You know we run a tight and very ethical ship here.

Come on guys...who do you expect the GFY Court Of Mob Lynchings to believe? Mutt or you bunch of "know nothings"?

I don't think he should.

People need to start being held accountable, and if we don't police ourselves the whole industry will go to shit (not like it isn't already!)

People who are processing for this CP and people pushing this CP need to be brought into the spotlight and run out of business and thrown in jail...or both.

People like mutt and bigdeanevans should be banned for bullshit like this. Pointing fingers at the wrong people all the time, then backing out.

You guys should get your act straight, and bully the REAL
criminals.

But wait, much easier to bitch around and act like a pimp keyboardwarrior for the bunch of trolls right?

Ps mutt checkout www.imobileporn.com i added some full lenght user submitted videos for you lol.

do you realize how difficult it is to watch for changes on the 10s of thousands of pages of content that the average gateway, or processor deals with? When someone goes to get an account, they present a URL, with logins and links to all their pages. Someone from the compliance department goes through every single page, and the underwriting process continues on to approval.
Then, once they are up, if you have someone going through every link, of every page, of every website, of every merchant in your portfolio, once a month, or once a week, it is pretty easy for someone to slip in a link or a page that doesn't get picked up in the screening. In fact, if even one of the AFFILIATES, of one of the websites, of one of your merchants, had CP content, you are also named in one of these types of actions.

You guys seem to think that it's easy to keep track of a million or so pages of links and content on even a weekly basis??? With all the best of intentions, it can happen to almost anyone in the billing, or for that matter, the hosting business.




.:2 cents:

Banned for what? Stating the obvious?

Look, All im saying is that they should police the sites they bill for more carefully, and if people are putting up pictures of very young looking girls without proper docs, they should come down.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THOSE 2 STATEMENTS?

bump for http://www.link2linkco.com/images/Fr...%20Giblets.jpg

Look, these pages haven't changed. If they took 2 seconds to look over those sites they would know what the deal is :2 cents:

I'm not saying they knew there was underage content, but they certainly in my opinion turned a blind , with a ton of other webmasters.

You are absolutely correct Michael. We all do the best job we can.

Dean, can you contact me on icq?