PayPal Agrees To Help IFPI Cut Off Funding For Sites IFPI Doesn't Like Without Judicial Oversight

from the how-to-stamp-out-competition dept

Mon, Jul 25th 2011 3:08am — Mike Masnick

Neppe alerts us to the news that PayPal has now followed the same path as MasterCard and Visa, in agreeing to the IFPI's plan to cut off payments to sites it doesn't like, without any judicial review. Basically, the IFPI will send info about sites it doesn't like (i.e., describes as "rogue" sites) to the London Police. It's not clear what sort of qualifications the London Police have on complex copyright issues, but okay. If the London Police agree with the IFPI (and so far, they have in 100% of the cases), the information about the sites will be passed on to the three payment processing companies, and they will no longer allow those sites to accept payments. Watch out, Internet Archive (which has been declared an infringing site by some in the industry), you may soon no longer be able to accept donations, thanks to the IFPI's fear of technology.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: london police, payments, rogue sites
Companies: ifpi, mastercard, paypal, visa

94 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 3:11am

Awesome fucking story bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:39am
  
  Re:
  I especially liked the part where he reasons that these sites would be targeted not because they engage in illegal activity, but because of "the IFPI's fear of technology".
  
  Such a story teller, that Masnick.
  
  The one creative bone in his body seems to be the one that comes up with new and original lies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greevar (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    To the industry, technology = illegal activity. You must have missed the memo.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    I've come up with a new strategy to identify Trolls. They tend to address to Mike by his surname. Oh wait, their entire posts are one big shout "I AM A TROLL! TROLOLOL!".
    
    MAFIAA has a long history that classifies as 'fear of technology'. Should I remind you of how 'home taping is killing music' or whatever you call it? How the tapes would ruin the music/movie industry? How file sharing would slaughter the industry - and it still posts record profits?.
    
    Shut up and read properly, it'll do you good.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Brendan (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    I like the part where the typical representative of the record industry thinks their profits take precedent over privacy, due process, free market economics, government for and by the people and the (much larger) profits of the technology industry.
    
    Oh... no, wait. I hate that part. Right.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 3:13am

Everybody can tell a pirate site when they see one except for Mike Masnick.

wink, wink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 3:18am
  
  Re:
  Can you please explain the piece of nonsense that you just wrote?
  
  That way we can be sure how stupid it really is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greevar (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    If the AC could do that, it would have made sense in the first place.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 3:29am
  
  Re:
  It's the government sites, right? I mean, they fit the description of bloodthirsty, murderous thieves right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- guilty until proven innocent?, 25 Jul 2011 @ 3:57am
  
  Re:
  Innocent until proven guilty goes right out the window, when you want it, right? Ok, then, I'll assume you're some sexual predator. I'd best be safe and get you registered on some sex offenders list. Good luck proving your innocence.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:21am
  
  Re:
  Everybody can tell a pirate site when they see one except for Mike Masnick.
  
  So then you agree that the Internet Archive, Vimeo, Vibe Magazine and those others are pirate sites, right?
  
  I've asked you this directly in the past, and you always disappear...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    OIC, this is the part where you start putting words in people's mouths, right?
    
    Are those sites on IFPI's list? No? Then why are you makng things up again? You do love to practice FUD, don't you Masnick?
    
    Hey Mike, should Demonoid's paypal be cut off? Yes or no?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So... you've NOT seen this blacklist, then, right?
      
      https://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-com-and-archive-org-blacklisted-as-pirate-sites-110610 /
      
      The one that lists those particulars in it? Or are you just randomly stupid?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you suggesting that the sites Masnick mentioned have never had any connection with infringing content?
        
        But that isn't the point here; answer the question, is that IFPI's list? No?
        
        Then care to try again, Freetardo?
        
        Or are you just going to continue to play Masnick's sloppy game of misdirection?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you suggesting that the sites Masnick mentioned have never had any connection with infringing content?
        
        Are you suggesting that there is any site on the internet that never had any connection with infringing content?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcel de Jong (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, if a tool has been used for illegal or illegit purposes, it makes that whole tool illegal and should just be banned?
        
        I'll have the police confiscate all guns, hammers, ballpoints, axes, icepicks, knives, cars, fists, swords, electricity, etc. Because all those tools have had a connection with illegal use. They have all been used to kill someone, which is illegal, and would make the tool illegal in your view.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you forgot 2 of the most dangerous tools the brain and the human boddy :P
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcel de Jong (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good point, though I already had fists, but you're right, the fists are controlled by someone's brain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You must be some kind of idiot. Even major companies pirate things from each other but at least they get the benefit of doubt. Joe Shmoe Forums dont. So take your bloodsucking ,deept-hroating corporate shilling back to the asshole you came from.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh yes, it's precisely the point, Copyrightard. Those sites may have infringed at some point - NOT willingly - but that's why DMCA takedowns are for, to allow these sites to comply with them and remove the said content.
        
        Except for the fact that MAFIAA stretches the DMCA and whatever copyirhgt related laws to extremes that are hard to believe at points. This 'agreement' is very dangerous because MAFIAA seems to think the entire internet is copyrighted and should be giving money to them.
        
        So, for any sane person here that's not a Copyrightard like you the one misdirecting here is none but you even though you are failing hard as always. Note: I'm including in the sanity list ppl that are PRO-copyright but reasoned enough not to be like you.
        
        So shush, go away and lick MAFIAA's bosses balls as a good MAFIAA puppy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:24pm
        
        FUD, my ass
        But that isn't the point here; answer the question, is that IFPI's list?
        
        Funny to see you shilltard try to tell everyone what the point ist. Tough luck that you just don't get to. It doesn't matter if those sites mentioned by Mike are not on the IFPI's list simply because they were on some other list but another rightsholder organisation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:16am
  
  Re:
  Everybody can tell a troll when they see one. Except this specific Anonymous Coward.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris-Mouse (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 3:43am

This sounds like something typical of the recording industry tactics. If you can't get what you want by getting the laws rewritten, do an end run around the law. They will do anything to get what they want, anything except prove that they've been harmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 3:48am

Courts are so last century, this is how recording industry is adapting to new modern age of the internet, by phases out involvement in courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:06am
  
  Re:
  "Courts are so last century..."
  
  Exactly. What we need is some good old fashioned witch hunts. Bring back the inquisition (the Spanish one, because no one expects it).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nicedoggy, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    When the people get tired of the "media tax"(i.e. the new Poll tax), people will call Jack Straw to lead the new " :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nicedoggy, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oops!
      
      When the people get tired of the "media tax"(i.e. the new Poll tax), people will call Jack Straw to lead the new Peasants's Revolt :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:37am
  
  Re:
  Watch what you wish for -- you may get it. And the recording industry is no match for the Internet. (Really, can you imagine one of the slack-jawed RIAA executives trying to comprehend TCP/IP? I don't think so. One might as well try to explain metaphysics to a cat.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    Except, at least in the cat's case, it may prove the fallibility of the methods used (see Schroedinger for more information.).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Atkray (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 1:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      +1 Internets for you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alatar, 25 Jul 2011 @ 3:48am

Google checkout, here I come!
I was considering closing my PayPal account, thanks for helping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:44am
  
  Re: Google checkout, here I come!
  Yeah, they only censor autocomplete without judicial oversight. Very non-evil.
  
  Oh, and pull legitimate music apps from their marketplace without any formal legal request, just a "we don't like it" from the music industry
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 3:54am

From the comments on the link site
Commenter: misterbump
"Having advised the Economic Crime Directorate on a couple of issues during 2009 and 2010, I was very surprised by the level of sweet fuck all that they knew. They bemoaned the lack of powers to 'knock heads together'. I shook my head, patronisingly."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me Al, 25 Jul 2011 @ 3:58am

Something sounded off about this story so I Googled "The London Police". It turns out they are some sort of art collective.

While I love the idea of Paypal suspending payments on the word of some graffiti artists I suspect you are actually referring to the Metropolitan Police Service, who I think do have specialists in such things.

Of course that is really a moot point since there is no way that payments should be suspended on accusations only. The wholesale abandonment of due process because it is inconvenient is really becoming endemic in the US, UK and Europe these days.

It also makes me wonder if there is any way another provider could step up and become the provider of choice for those with a bit more morals. Or is it an exceptionally difficult game to get into?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicedoggy, 25 Jul 2011 @ 3:58am

And here is the reason this won't reduce piracy.
It is because people just like/need to share things, it is in their nature to do so.

http://www.shareable.net/blog/new-research-why-people-share-content-online

Piracy as it is framed today is not about the money, is about some deluded people who believe they can mandate others stop being human beings and start following orders that even they themselves couldn't abide by it LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:06am
  
  Re:
  Just remember that when I pick your pocket and take your money, it's just because you want to share your money with me.
  
  No really, obviously you do. Thanks bud.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    Been there, done that, got your t-shirt now.
    
    Thanks for playing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JayTee (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm sorry this is the wrong analogy, no one is picking your pocket...the money is not there in the first place so it cannot be stolen.
    
    If you had a better way of getting money into your pocket first, i.e better business model or better quality product then you could in theory have money stolen from you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - IronM@sk, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not a long time reader obviously. When you pick someones pocket, they no longer have the physical object you took. When you share digita.... you know what, never mind. You'll never get it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcel de Jong (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I fear as much, we keep having to educate these people of those principles over and over again, and they keep misreading it, either willfully or unintentionally I won't judge.
      
      We can't move on with the discussion because of them sandbagging us with those ridiculous analogies, that we have to explain again and again that copying isn't the same as stealing. I wish we could move to more productive ways of furthering our culture.
      In 50-100 years time, nothing that's created today culturally-wise will still be (fondly) remembered, at least nothing created by the "content industry", whereas the people who do share their media might stand a chance of being remembered.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Making copies of legal tender is counterfeiting. Which is like copyright infringement, which is like stealing, which is like murder.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 25 Jul 2011 @ 2:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If you can somehow pick my pocket and in doing so take only a "copy" of my money, leaving my money intact in my pocket, then you would be sharing my money. Your take on things does not jive with piracy or sharing at all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:27am
  
  Re:
  Exactly, this will not reduce piracy.
  
  But it will cause problems for those who are not pirates. And since they are not pirates, they cannot use the kinds of tricks pirates could use to avoid being impacted. This is why we are wary of such initiatives.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcel de Jong (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    What do you mean? You mean that they can't offer their media in unencumbered formats, nor can they offer better quality?
    
    The majority of people who download stuff from these pirates would gladly pay for the stuff instead, but because of wrong formats, or DRM, or being burned in the past by rubbish material, they decide to grab it first from a website to see if it's worth their time or if it even works on their machines.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Pull the other one, it has bells.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Prove him wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcel de Jong (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nah, it's no use, these copyright-maximalists are interested in only one thing. Confusing and conflating the issues, and are only interested in one narrative, namely the one where they are being stolen from by the rest of the world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Prisoner 201, 26 Jul 2011 @ 4:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yup. Its easier on the ego if all your failings are someone else's fault.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicedoggy, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:15am

Will they cancel Apple's paypal account?

Quote:
Most bewildering of all is that even with all their rhetoric chastising piracy and intellectual property theft, Apple apparently has no functional counter-piracy safeguards in place on their Game Center � essentially permitting users to play pirated software on their Game Center without any fear of reprisals or consequence

Source: http://blog.gameized.com/2011/07/12/the-huge-success-of-an-appstore-failure/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicedoggy, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:17am

You are welcome to copy all the money I have in my pocked dude LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:34am
  
  Re:
  No, not copy, share. Remember it's about sharing.
  
  But since I'm pickpocketing you, you'll never know it was me. Doesn't matter tho, cuz it's all about the sharing, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    (I know I shouldn't feed you, but, whatever...)
    
    As long as you are ok with sharing too, I don't really see a problem.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    ...
    i'd like to think no one was this stupid.
    
    then i actually pay attention to reality and am once again disappointed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nicedoggy, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    Of course is about sharing, sharing a copy, you can copy all the money in my pocket I don't mind LoL
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nicedoggy, 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    All pirates do is copy something, they do their copying using their own resources too.
    
    If you can't act like a pirate and make it sound bad, moving the goal post further ain't the answer LoL
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    Your analogy doesn't work and you know it - so you keep trying to fix it
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ASTROBOI, 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    "No, not copy, share. Remember it's about sharing.
    
    But since I'm pickpocketing you, you'll never know it was me. Doesn't matter tho, cuz it's all about the sharing, right?"
    
    Tell ya what. As long as you limit your pickpocketing to making copies of my wallet and leaving the original in my pocket, we are cool.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fraggle, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:20am

London Police & copyright
The London Police ( presumably the Metropolitan Police) may not be very qualified when it comes to copyright but recent revelations from Murdochgate indicate that they are excellent at cosying up to big media and may even be bought if the price is right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:08am
  
  Re: London Police & copyright
  Actually it's the City of London Police - which is separate from the Metroppolitan police - (not that that makes it any better though...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CommonSense, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:58am
  
  Re: London Police & copyright
  Yeah, I was just going to ask the question: London police have agreed in 100% of the cases, or they've been paid to agree in them all?? Because we KNOW after the News Of the World scandal that the London Police are not above being paid off.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Viln (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:31am

Internet shaping itself...
There's two ways of looking at this. On the surface this is an example of an unrestricted and unmanageable global network settling on its own morals. The article is somewhat vague on details but it does mention the payment processing providers will interact with the sites in question and request some information or justification for their situation. Since this isn't really a legal judgment there's no expectation of legal due process... the company has the right to choose with whom they do business and they can exercise their own process based on whatever motivates them most: fairness, public image, corporate image, profit etc... I'd rather live in a world where big content continues to try to bribe, blackmail and subvert companies under the table as they have done for years than this brave new world where their brazen Goon Squad with government badges publicly urinates on centuries-old constitutional freedoms to the theme song of Team America World Police.

On the flip side, moving from theory to reality, the 100% stat should tell you how often we can expect these companies to challenge their content overlords when it comes to a site that may try to put up a challenge. Paypal obviously sees it can make significantly more money being on the good side of the marketplace providers than trying to appease a demographic it thinks doesn't pay for things very often anyway. Other payment processing alternatives will fill in the gaps, because that's what smaller versions of an established business model do... they start by servicing the areas the big fish chooses to ignore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BearGriz72 (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 7:17pm
  
  Re: Internet shaping itself...
  "Goon Squad with government badges publicly urinates on centuries-old constitutional freedoms to the theme song of Team America World Police."
  
  Win!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:40am

So there is a blackballing or a collective boycott going against sites that a group of associates decide they don't like. Are there no other (albeit smaller) organizations that perform the same job Paypal does? Surely they can't have a monopoly on it.

Yes its a dick move, yes it makes things less convienient, but there is no right to convienience. If you don't like it, use someone elses services (AMEX, Discover, etc)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nicedoggy, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:52am
  
  Re:
  There may be anti-trust, competition and discrimination issues with that endeavor.
  
  I wonder how much a website that is not illegal but has its payments blocked could sue Paypal and the others for, maybe there could even be some multi-million dollar damage awards :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    Thinking too small. By the MAFIAA's logic,we're talking trillions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:50am

Still haven't learned their lesson
How many times does this stupid company have to be brought down before they realize the internet has had it with their shady actions? Paypal has got to have some of the stupidest CEO's on the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:58am

Where is that link...let me see now...I know I have it in here somewhere...oh, there it is:

http://www.bitcoin.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:50am
  
  Re:
  You still have to cash it out for real money, and they'll block you when you do
  
  "But it's anonymous!"
  
  No it's not
  
  http://anonymity-in-bitcoin.blogspot.com/2011/07/bitcoin-is-not-anonymous.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris Rhodes (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    they'll block you when you do
    
    Who will block you, and how? There are multiple methods to buy and sell bitcoins for USD, and it's quite easy to launder coins through alternate addresses before you do. PayPal, Mastercard, et. al can't stop you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2011 @ 6:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    so? neither is paypal
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:00am

Will PayPal, Visa and MasterCard cut off payments to members of the IFPI if they fail to pay royalties owed to artists? Guess I won't be using PayPal anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:08am

considering the shit paypal has been in over the years, there absolute crap customer service and the court appearences have they have had, this is just their way of trying to stop more being thrown at them. typical, gutless company. do as the entertainment industries want instead of standing up for their customers and disputing any charges first. typical entertainment industries; threaten instead of adapting!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:26am
  
  Re:
  They have adapted. Along with iTunes and spotify, enforcing the law is but one of the many ways.
  
  Now when are you going to adapt? You've been behaving the same static way for years now. Did you think that was going to last?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ, 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:16am

Sigh,
Are these guys complete idiots? Now instead of an electronic trail that can be tracked, the people who use these sites will now simply drop cash in an envelope, with an account name, and mail it to the physical address with no/fake return address. Or are we going to start picking and choosing where mail can/cannot be sent?

Or how about just sending money to a bank account in a country that doesn't have such draconian laws? Do we really want to chase more money out of our country?

How about we attack the root of the problem and not the symptoms... lets figure out why people use these sites and run them out of business by out performing them! It's not a perfect idea, but it's better than letting the government decide who gets paid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:35am
  
  Re: Sigh,
  You don't "out-perform" a site that gives away goods they had no investment in producing, when you're the one that was the venture capital for said goods.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:58am
    
    Re: Re: Sigh,
    "You don't "out-perform" a site that gives away goods they had no investment in producing"
    
    Really? The content producers have access to all sorts of things that the other sites can not offer. They can have web chats and offer exclusive offers. (cue you saying that those will just end up copied as well) And you are correct, someone might choose to share those. But there is something about being involved that attracts fans.
    
    I'm not saying offering an exclusive bumpersticker that requires the customer to turn of their email, cell #, facebook links to get is the right path. You need to look at the business model and see the flaws as flaws first. There should be no reason that an international music company can not release music everywhere at once. Creating arbitrary "regions" seems to be a way to just punish customers for liking your band. They also use it as a method to try and keep "cheaper" copies they produced in the "right" places. This is just a cheap tactic on their part to maximize revenue, and well that is their job. But when they create different version for different areas, and then offer the fans no way to get it outside of that certain region, you are surprised those fans turn to the net?
    
    But let us ignore that many "pirates" buy more content.
    Let us ignore that as the costs to produce these things has dropped, the retail price goes up.
    Let us ignore that digital "goods" are not one off creations recorded for each order, but an infinite supply copied from an original.
    Let us ignore that they keep a great deal of content locked away, and consumers who want to buy are ignored... so they look at alternate means to get what they want.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:58am
    
    Re: Re: Sigh,
    You don't "out-perform" a site that gives away goods they had no investment in producing, when you're the one that was the venture capital for said goods.
    
    If you're the one that produced the stuff in the first place then you have plenty of advantages to set against that initial cost (and remember - that cost has shunk dramatically in recent years).
    Those advantages include
    
    1. Authenticity
    2. Goodwill.
    3. A head start over the competition.
    4. Ability to use the originators in publicity campaigns.
    
    If you can't use these to beat the competition then you are stupid.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:30am
    
    Re: Re: Sigh,
    Oh? There are two games that say you're full of shit: Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Sigh,
      you know i could name a few games most mmos and acording to a report thos kind of games make more money than the subscription one
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws.org (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:43pm
    
    Re: Re: Sigh,
    Right, so despite all the rampant piracy and losses to the industry, it still produces content. How's that for logic?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:35am
  
  Re: Sigh,
  Because GOD FORBID someone else makes money.
  
  Also known as the 'Fuck you, I got mine' debating technique. Common users; Teabaggers, the English Defence League and Le Front National.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicedoggy, 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:37am

List of Paypal competitors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_on-line_payment_service_providers

http://en.w ikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_monetary_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_currency
http://en.w ikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-currency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_currency
http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Micropayment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flattr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Exc hange_Trading_Systems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew McIntyre, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:14am

This is just like Nazi Germany
Remember how the Gestapo had the children spy on you or your best friend spy on you. This kind of reminds me of that. They have gone full blown into dark territory. They have no care about the rights of others as long as they get what they want and you play by their rules. Even if those rules are against international law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:31am

Mike, you aren't going to be shocked here, but I have to say I disagree with the whole take on the story.

What the IFPI is doing is going to paypal, and saying "these people appear to be breaking your ToS". What Paypal has agreed to do is to ask the people involved to provide information to show that they are within the rules of the Paypal ToS. If they cannot do that, Paypal cuts them off.

For Paypal (and other payment processors), they would be leaving themselves open for incredibly legal risk if the continued to process funds for sites that don't meet their ToS after they have been notified.

What Paypal is doing is making sure that the sites it handles payments for are able to produce documentation that shows that they feel they are legal and within the ToS.

There is no requirement for judicial oversight in the application of a company's ToS, provided that ToS is applied equally to all customers. Anyone who disagrees could obviously take Paypal to court and get the judicial branch involved, but it is doubtful that a bunch of pirates are going to do that, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:53am
  
  Re:
  Oh, so the police are just helping make sure users of a service obey the rules that nobody reads anyway? Likely story; the same way the police help out with moderating flame wars on My Little Pony forums - hey, being a jerk is against the TOS!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:20am
  
  Re:
  Do you have proof that Paypal will do the due diligence needed to verify if a reported site is indeed breaking their terms of service.
  
  Their track record doesn't speak for them in this case.
  
  Case in point: Wikileaks. And there are countless other users who found their accounts blocked with no way of accessing THEIR own money that was in those accounts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2011 @ 6:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    Marcel, Wikileaks was easy - what was on their application, the account being used, wasn't valid. PayPal didn't have to look any further than that.
    
    Paypal blocks accounts when they think there is illegal activity going on, or when the user account information is not valid. That is normal, they are obliged under US law to "know your client", otherwise they are open for money laundering charges.
    
    Sorry if it doesn't match up to the anonymous hiding in the bushes way some people want to operate, but it's the law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcel de Jong (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 8:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Datacell handled transactions for more organizations than just Wikileaks. And it is Datacell that's gotten blocked, and thus ALL clients of Datacell.
      
      You wanna talk about unethical? Talk about how Visa, Mastercard and Paypal suddenly on the same day decide that 1 company, that they've had dealings with for a longer period of time, was all of a sudden too hot to handle, right around the time that the US was starting to put pressure on companies that had ties, however loosely, with Wikileaks.
      
      Datacell was all above board, have always been above board.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re:
  If there's no judicial oversight required in the application of a TOS...then what. the. hell. are the police doing here? As for your last sentence, Wikileaks is already suing Paypal et al for this tactic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:54am

PayPal etc.
Made it damned hard to donate to WikiLeaks! I think my right to free speech, or expression or something, has been violated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:16am
  
  Re: PayPal etc.
  You want to donate? Write them a check. Oh wait, they don't take checks, they are hiding. Okay. So get on a plane, fly to their offices in... wait, they don't have offices, they are hiding.
  
  Yes, we should force private companies to process payments for companies that are hiding. Good idea!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcel de Jong (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:22am
    
    Re: Re: PayPal etc.
    Hiding? What in screaming blue heck are you talking about?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re: PayPal etc.
      Julina Assange sometimes hides in front of a new's camera. Insidious!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:19am

Dwolla
I think Dwolla is going to get a huge boost in users as PayPal starts its long-foreseen self-destruct cycle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]