Printable View
azura blu - offshore is not a solution if you live or work in the u.s. as the law does not refer to where your site is but only to where YOU are.
and we don't know for a fact that all these restrictions are from the government unless i missed a major thread. what we know for a fact is they are from visa and in many cases, i could see why visa might object without any government interference.
At last, my CCBill account has gone through processing and I will be ready to start accepting new members as soon as I figure out how to set up my affiliate accounts.
I most DEFINITELY want to be an affililiate of Boyfunk!:cheese:
And I must say that CCBill has excellent client support. They've been extremely helpful today.
Any advise on advertising, anyone?
Cheers,
azura blu
always listen to basschickQuote:
Originally Posted by azurablu9
Ah, yes! Visa is one of the main problems, I'm sure.
But I think, in my particular situation, it was an issue of opinion.
Some of the artwork I had on my website, that CCBill asked me to remove, did not have an obvious "underage" appearance (that's not what my site is about). It was just that the characters were small and had a somewhat "innocent" look to them. My site is a twink site, for the most part.
It will be difficult for me to determine which pieces of artwork may be considered "unsuitable", so I'll be leaning towards the work that has older looking characters. And I'll have to warn the artists that I hire, so they don't draw in the traditional Japanese anime style of large eyes and small bodies.
Anyway, I think you are right about Visa being a major deciding factor. I just think there are some companies that are more cautious than others.
I can understand this, though. Nobody wants to lose business because of "questionable" material.
Thanks for the feedback.
Cheers,
azura blu
When you're talking about gray area stuff, of course there's going to be some variation depending on which individual compliance person is reviewing your site. I'm sure Visa doesnt' have regs as to how big the eyes can be or anything like that, it's just somebody's opinion.
We had an issue some years ago when we were trying to get our physical product merchant account (Visa to process for DVDs). Cardservice took our application, and the $8/hr front-line schmuck that reviewed our application and looked at our videos made a notation somewhere in her notes that she thought our stuff might be CP. But no one would tell us this, only that there were "compliance issues" and it kept getting bumped up to someone else up the ladder. Finally, someone told us what the problem was... because this low-level person had put the notes in the file about the possible concern, no one else wanted to take the responsibility for saying "No, I think it's fine, it's not CP, let's approve it"... even after we submitted all sorts of additional docs, model IDs, etc. So sometimes it totally depends on the particular person reviewing the site.
The other thing is... you made a reference to the banning of the term "pre-teen." As far as I know, that was banned back in the early 70s when child porn was banned. The term "Pre-teen" means people 12 years old and under, and if that isn't CP, I don't know what is, so that phrase should most DEFINITELY be banned, and if I ever saw it used, I'd report the site to ASACP immediately.
"Twink" is a very well established term that does not (at least today) have any connotation with underage. In fact, in some markets, "twink" is a preferred word over "boy" or "teen", even when those words are qualified such as "18+ boys" or "18 and 19 year old teens." As I've said ad nasueum in this thread, the likelihood of that word being banned is no greater than the word "sex" or "masturbation" being banned, in my humble opinion.
~~~Chip wrote: The other thing is... you made a reference to the banning of the term "pre-teen." As far as I know, that was banned back in the early 70s when child porn was banned. The term "Pre-teen" means people 12 years old and under, and if that isn't CP, I don't know what is, so that phrase should most DEFINITELY be banned, and if I ever saw it used, I'd report the site to ASACP immediately.~~~
Yes, I agree. I was not objecting to this term being banned. I simply used the term "pre-teen" as an example, responding to an earlier post from Ponyboy that read, "But come on, banning words! Are books next?"
I was trying to point out that there are words that are banned already, so this is not a new concept.
It might have been more clear if I had added the text was replying to. Sorry.
Cheers,
azura blu