new payment processor info

[billhiggs]

since paypal has decided to get out of file host business, it seems a lot are using payza or webmoney,

which one is the best and likely to not pull a paypal stunt?

 

[ausafali]

PayZa

 

[WDF]

payza does not work with directly with file hosts also and most that pay with payza are using third party processors which adds another person with your information and another person to possibly scam you.

 

[subhy259]

webmoney

 

[filerking]

They will all fall to Stop File Lockers eventually. Unless their TOS states anything is allowed to be processed for including illegal content. People have to understand payment processors have rules, if a partner break them, they may stop doing business with the partner.

So who will turn a blind eye to EVERYTHING? Western Union, Cash in the post, Bank Wire, once you pull out a credit card there are rules to follow, not DMCA, the rules of Vise and Mastercard carried to the partner via the bank and then the bank processing. I realised this 6 months ago and got everything to a safer way way of doing business.

 

[nrrdulcet]

for indian i tking both r not good
what do u all say ?

 

[filerking]

Learn to speak English. )

 

[blue_412]

At this moment webmoney is better.

The worst of them all is moneybookers.

 

[toRRfriend]

webmoney ftw

 

[filerking]

At this moment webmoney is better.

http://www.wmtransfer.com/eng/cooperation/legal/syagreement1.shtml

d) use WEBMONEY TRANSFER for legal purposes only; never use WEBMONEY TRANSFER to accept payments for illegally obtained, received products or services, including deals infringing copyright of third parties (piracy products);

Seems OK until your site gets notified for piracy. :facepalm:

 

[WDF]

So do you work for Manwin like AK does? Or is it 1 of the File Hosting Services owned by Manwin that you work for?

Don't you think some people wonder why certain File Hosting services never seem to face payment processor issues while all the others do?

They are on the "Don't Mess With List" because they are owned by the company behind Robert and SFL.

You are probably also on their payroll.

 

[filerking]

SFL is a small operation that has been going for a matter of months and caused a lot of damage. Just a few guys on a limited budget. If Manwin were fully behind it the devastation would be far worse. When the record, film, games and programming industry get behind it no file locker charging people to download pirated content will be safe. To think they are not aware of this is naive. Worse still for you will be the US Government, they can drag in Visa and MC and ask them to apply their own rules.

Stop thinking porn, Manwin and the small picture. AK has revealed your weak link. Processing is essential to pay for servers. File Lockers can't go the 100% advertising route and cater for the huge amount of traffic and BW required. Youtube, Vimeo, Pornhub, etc can squeeze down videos to make the load easier. Did you read what Kim Dotcom was paying a month for his hosting?

Now this brings up another problem, hosting companies are going to be watching this and asking themselves if a File Locker has been hit and can't pay the bill, when will they pay it. Same goes for staff. AK has opened a Pandora's Box and if you think it's not going to hurt File Lockers, you're missing the obvious.

Those that charge the uploader will be free to carry on, until they upload pirated content and get caught. Then the entire site may come crashing down. They can't follow DMCA and comply to the processors rules.

Think of how long AK has been going, the damage he's caused and this time next year. If as you imply it's a scheme to get the market reduced to 1 or 2 File Lockers, owned by 1 or 2 companies, you're fooling yourself. It leaves them open to anyone else to bring them down. By a proven method.

 

[justpeace]

http://www.wmtransfer.com/eng/cooperation/legal/syagreement1.shtml



Seems OK until your site gets notified for piracy. :facepalm:

Except that file hosting is not a piracy product. File hosting is perfectly legal, if the provider stays within the bounds of the DMCA or the safe harbor law applicable in the payment processor's jurisdiction.

The amount of infringing content or the number of copyright complaints have no bearing on whether the file host is within the law.

There are likely a lot of file hosts which due to their own culpable conduct or specific knowledge aren't covered by the DMCA or the equivalent EU safe harbor, but the SFL is really stretching the definition of piracy facilitation beyond what the law actually provides.

There is no legal duty on the party of a file host to proactively monitor user generated content. Predicating liability on a service provider's lack of proactive monitoring or filtering may in fact violate EU law.

Your sponsors should be very careful before impugning that any identified file host is illegal. It may well not be doing what you think it should to stem piracy, but claiming that a file host is facilitating piracy may amount to defamation.

The defamation burden in Australia law is very plaintiff friendly. Any file host company or owner may sue SFL in any jurisdiction whose courts are willing to entertain a libel action.

And it's obvious why you don't dare to go after Rapidshare. They are big and have defended themselves in other real lawsuits.

 

[filerking]

Justpeace. Then why are processors cutting off file lockers?

You're free to sue us property owners anytime you want. Send me the name of your lawyers.

---------- Post added at 07:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 AM ----------

Except that file hosting is not a piracy product. File hosting is perfectly legal, if the provider stays within the bounds of the DMCA or the safe harbor law applicable in the payment processor's jurisdiction.

SFL has nothing to do with DMCA.

The amount of infringing content or the number of copyright complaints have no bearing on whether the file host is within the law.

This issue has nothing to do with staying within the law.

There are likely a lot of file hosts which due to their own culpable conduct or specific knowledge aren't covered by the DMCA or the equivalent EU safe harbor, but the SFL is really stretching the definition of piracy facilitation beyond what the law actually provides.

This issue has nothing to do with the law.

There is no legal duty on the party of a file host to proactively monitor user generated content. Predicating liability on a service provider's lack of proactive monitoring or filtering may in fact violate EU law.

This issue has nothing to do with the law.

Your sponsors should be very careful before impugning that any identified file host is illegal. It may well not be doing what you think it should to stem piracy, but claiming that a file host is facilitating piracy may amount to defamation.

Then sue. No one will because all SFL does is search for pirated content with the option of a faster paid download and reports the page to the processor. Take away the payment element and there is no one to report to.

The defamation burden in Australia law is very plaintiff friendly. Any file host company or owner may sue SFL in any jurisdiction whose courts are willing to entertain a libel action.

Any idea what they can sue SFL for?

And it's obvious why you don't dare to go after Rapidshare. They are big and have defended themselves in other real lawsuits.

So if Rapidshare were reported for having illegal content on their servers and asking money for downloading the file. Which is all true. When their processing is withdrawn, what law will they sue under? Reporting the truth isn't going to work.

JP This has nothing to do with the law. It's about whether a merchant is complying with the terms of his contract. A legal porn site can't process with Paypal, even if the porn is legal. And posters who continually refer to DMCA simply don't want to understand the truth. It's all about complying with a contract between the merchant and the processor.

 

[WDF]

If Manwin were fully behind it the devastation would be far worse.

Not if Manwin does not want to attract attention to their own operations and their activities it wouldn't.

They would pay a couple of people like AK and SFL, etc. to do their dirty work. I have not seen 1 large well funded host mentioned on Robert's sites. If their work is so righteous and protected by the law why is that? Could it be they really do not want a host with a legal team or even 1 lawyer to become involved on the opposing side?

Why is it in the 24 hour period of time it had been posted you had no rebuttal for the PayPal email disclosure policy violations Robert committed on his site mentioned here? How do you think PayPal might respond to that or the CC companies will react when they find this crusader for all that is good violates policy willfully to achieve someone else's desired results?

Yes AK and his team are puppets of a large online porn distributor, owner of Tube sites (I am sure the rights holders are compensated for those viewings.8-):facepalm, and owner of several large File hosting sites and possibly the largest copyright infringement violator in the world.

I know many people that supported those efforts until it became clear who was behind it and financing it.

Now take your trolling ass back to SFL and tell them you managed to burn another account here.

 

[Carlos Black]

The big question: who needs a Paypal? All file hosting already voluntarily abandoned this cowardly payment system and very well without it. Even if the content owners will be able to turn off all billings of Europe and the United States will always be webmoney and the like. Similarly, payment systems do not care if even the Visa and MasterCard will disconnect them from payment processing. People in the West are also fond of cheap prices and they will find other ways to pay for access to the file hosting through these payment processors.

Content owners time to understand a simple truth: no one will buy 10 movies for $ 40, if he could buy 100,000 for $ 10, even if it is not quite legal and quite difficult. Your only way to beat online piracy is to cut prices many times over!

Otherwise, your content will be distributed just in third world countries, using their payment systems. And the only way to stop it - to start a military invasion. Are you sure that the U.S. will start a military invasion for porn or warez owners? Especially in countries such as India, China or Russia?
I do not think so. So, you have already lost. Lower the price and offer a truly profitable affiliate programs for the legal distribution of your product - then any piracy will die by itself.
And while you're greedy, you're going to lose millions and no stupid laws in the West will not stop the spread of the content in third-world countries. And to buy it will be the citizens of the U.S. and Europe, even through the worst and illegal payment systems.