AfterDawn: News

Paypal freezes accounts, bans Usenet providers

Just weeks after they began banning file-sharing hosts, Paypal has extended the bans to major Usenet services, citing piracy concerns.

Outside of banning the providers, the company has also frozen the assets in the accounts.



A few of the Usenet providers banned are XSUsenet, EasyUsenet and Usenet4U with smaller services being banned, as well.

The providers can now no longer accept Paypal payments and their funds have been frozen for the next 180 days.

Paypal recently banned major file sharing sites like Putlocker and Mediafire, for not adhering to their new rules regarding file sharing. Putlocker even explained to TF that Paypal demanded that they be given full access to the backend of the site, to see all files that are being uploaded, regardless of the privacy settings of the user.

View the rules here:



Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 23 Nov 2012 2:11

• Previous article

• Mozilla kills off 64-bit Firefox

• Next article

• Report: 1TB optical discs coming in 3 years

• 37 comments

• nonoitall

  Meh. I'll pay with a credit card.
  

  me on the Dragon Ball Encyclopedia
  me on YouTube

  23.11.2012 03:05 #1

• bigfamei

  Originally posted by nonoitall: Meh. I'll pay with a credit card. I'll go back to sending a money order to them.

  23.11.2012 04:27 #2

• butterfly17 (unverified)

  i don't know what to write i am a new user

  23.11.2012 04:49 #3

• hikaricor

  Originally posted by butterfly17: i don't know what to write i am a new user Usually people either post opinions on the topic or troll in these situations.. just thought you should know. Welcome to the internet.
  

  --aaron

  23.11.2012 06:37 #4

• Semperfipal

  Originally posted by bigfamei: Originally posted by nonoitall: Meh. I'll pay with a credit card. I'll go back to sending a money order to them. I didn't know you could do that. Will credit cards companies eventually do what Paypal did? Also using a credit card leaves an audit trail back to you in case your worried about some level of privacy. I don't think a money order would, but not sure. Any thoughts?
  

  "Do not underestimate the power of an enemy, no matter how great or small, to rise against you another day." - Atilla

  23.11.2012 08:56 #5

• KillerBug

  Well, im no pirate, but im closing my paypal account this morning. they are not the only game in town.

  23.11.2012 09:06 #6

• rmarsh

  I stopped using Paypal some time ago because of the risk of arbitrary account freezing. This company has way too much clout and charges too much for their 'service' to merchants. I do not deal with any merchant that uses paypal exclusively.

  23.11.2012 09:06 #7

• mini76

  Originally posted by rmarsh: I stopped using Paypal some time ago because of the risk of arbitrary account freezing. This company has way too much clout and charges too much for their 'service' to merchants. I do not deal with any merchant that uses paypal exclusively. Whole heartedly agree with all these points. Paypal are way above themselves and greedy to boot.
  

  23.11.2012 09:18 #8

• KillerBug

  Originally posted by rmarsh: I stopped using Paypal some time ago because of the risk of arbitrary account freezing. This company has way too much clout and charges too much for their 'service' to merchants. I do not deal with any merchant that uses paypal exclusively. I've had a Payza account for a while now (got it back when it was Alertpay)...but people just seem paranoid about sending funds by anything but their beloved paypal. Well, too bad...I'm not going to support the actions of paypal anymore.

  23.11.2012 09:40 #9

• cyprusrom

  I am pretty pleased with WebMoney. Their process is a bit more cumbersome, but once you get it setup, works pretty nice.

  23.11.2012 09:59 #10

• ChiknLitl

  I imagine there are others of us that are absolutely outraged by this. I just don't understand what the angle is? What does Paypal get out of doing this? Do they have a stake in reducing file sharing? It seems as if they have made it their mission by the rules above, free access to monitor the site, dictating the site's terms of service, etc, etc!!! What the F***? Granted, they are a private company (are they still private?) but why do they think it is their place to police these sites? And to freeze the accounts of the sites without justification or pending legal action is obscene.

  23.11.2012 11:26 #11

• djgizmo

  Their rules for Usenet providers are absolutely atrocious, and I believe in some states, illegal. You cannot 'force' a company to allow full reign on the backend of a system for justification as a payment method.
  
  I give it a few weeks before Paypal gets their pants sued.
  

  -Sean-

  23.11.2012 12:45 #12

• PepePecas (unverified)

  Still don´t get it??? Sharing copyrighted files is wrong!!! You like it or not, is Bad... Sorry, all missed the point here. I know many use those services for good, you must be pissed out with those how use it for bad, and trigger this actions... FOCUS.

  23.11.2012 13:04 #13

• Semperfipal

  Originally posted by PepePecas: Still don´t get it??? Sharing copyrighted files is wrong!!! You like it or not, is Bad... Sorry, all missed the point here. I know many use those services for good, you must be pissed out with those how use it for bad, and trigger this actions... FOCUS. I've always heard the 10% of whatever discipline you are in, using or whatever will ruin it for the 90% of those who are legitmate. Which means 10% control what the rest of us do. How is the the minority fucks it up for the majority. Seems backwards to me, and should be the other way around. Oh well, thats the way of world I guess.
  

  "Do not underestimate the power of an enemy, no matter how great or small, to rise against you another day." - Atilla

  23.11.2012 13:13 #14

• ZippyDSM

  And yet they ignore the questionable pharmacy sites...
  
  Originally posted by PepePecas: Still don´t get it??? Sharing copyrighted files is wrong!!! You like it or not, is Bad... Sorry, all missed the point here. I know many use those services for good, you must be pissed out with those how use it for bad, and trigger this actions... FOCUS. The only trouble is we've given the IP owners an few feet and they have taken millions of miles. IP law is slowly becoming draconian fascism.
  
  We can't even implement a system that focuses on real damage like making illicit revenue off distribution because the powers that be would just let the lawyers warp it to a point where you still can't do anything with IP but pay for it time and time again.
  
  
  

  Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
  
  ---
  Check out my crappy creations
  http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

  23.11.2012 13:16 #15

• ZippyDSM

  Originally posted by Semperfipal: Originally posted by PepePecas: Still don´t get it??? Sharing copyrighted files is wrong!!! You like it or not, is Bad... Sorry, all missed the point here. I know many use those services for good, you must be pissed out with those how use it for bad, and trigger this actions... FOCUS. I've always heard the 10% of whatever discipline you are in, using or whatever will ruin it for the 90% of those who are legitmate. Which means 10% control what the rest of us do. How is the the minority fucks it up for the majority. Seems backwards to me, and should be the other way around. Oh well, thats the way of world I guess. The minority own everything and the majority are too busy getting by day by day to care about product quality, enslavement,censorship ,lower wages ,higher inflation, ect,ect,ect
  
  This logic works well for both politics and consumer goods and services as both are pretty messed up and slowly getting worse.
  
  
  

  Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
  
  ---
  Check out my crappy creations
  http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

  23.11.2012 13:19 #16

• megadunderhead

  hey paypal we will miss you because you will go out of bussiness for this and worse you are violating privacy laws in other countrys by blocking usenet accounts because you have no right to request access to the files at all without a search warrent as deemed by most countrys
  

  23.11.2012 13:23 #17

• vbdragon

  "Merchants must provide PayPal with free access to their service, so PayPal's Acceptable Us Policy department can monitor content."
  
  It seems that even if you don't use PayPal, they want access to all customer's "content".
  So, any merchant that uses PayPal has given access to their services to PayPal. Irrespective of any Privacy Laws and without a Federal or State warrant!!
  
  What Federal Court or Federal Bill gave PayPal the duty of controlling & enforcing all copywrite laws??
  
  There goes some more civil liberties!
  You just got bent over & you didn't even feel a thing!

  23.11.2012 15:49 #18

• ChiknLitl

  @vbdragon
  
  Quote:What Federal Court or Federal Bill gave PayPal the duty of controlling & enforcing all copyright laws This is exactly the point! The fact that "sharing copyrighted files is wrong" has nothing to do with PayPal. What have they ever published, produced or represented that gives them an interest in copyright enforcement? They are in the money/payment business.

  23.11.2012 16:03 #19

• Mrguss

  Why you should Ditch PayPal and use other services to send money:
  http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/1865lyy03o8x7jpg/original.jpg
  http://lifehacker.com/5821634/why-you-s...nd-people-money
  

  +5000

  23.11.2012 16:33 #20

• cdsettlemyre

  Originally posted by nonoitall: Meh. I'll pay with a credit card. Eh...credit or debit
  

  23.11.2012 19:46 #21

• ThePastor

  I'm having a hard time understanding why Paypal thinks they have a dog in this hunt.
  
  And furthermore, if I find out that my information was given to Paypal... (i'm not a paypal customer) I'll be suing like nobody's business.
  
  I dropped them ages ago when they kept sending me spam emails. Took me MONTHS to get my CC deleted from them and I still get crap from them.
  
  My only concern here, really, is just the fact that Usenet is on their radar.

  23.11.2012 20:25 #22

• ZippyDSM

  Originally posted by ThePastor: I'm having a hard time understanding why Paypal thinks they have a dog in this hunt.
  
  And furthermore, if I find out that my information was given to Paypal... (i'm not a paypal customer) I'll be suing like nobody's business.
  
  I dropped them ages ago when they kept sending me spam emails. Took me MONTHS to get my CC deleted from them and I still get crap from them.
  
  My only concern here, really, is just the fact that Usenet is on their radar. The media maffia can easily go after them. And take ebay with it.
  

  Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
  
  ---
  Check out my crappy creations
  http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

  23.11.2012 21:29 #23

• KillerBug

  Originally posted by ChiknLitl: I just don't understand what the angle is? "Freezing" accounts is essentially the same thing as stealing all the money out of them...even if it is released at some point, they make interest on it until then.
  
  Originally posted by vbdragon: "Merchants must provide PayPal with free access to their service, so PayPal's Acceptable Us Policy department can monitor content."
  
  It seems that even if you don't use PayPal, they want access to all customer's "content".
  So, any merchant that uses PayPal has given access to their services to PayPal. Irrespective of any Privacy Laws and without a Federal or State warrant!!
  
  What Federal Court or Federal Bill gave PayPal the duty of controlling & enforcing all copywrite laws?? It isn't just about copyright enforcement either...Megaupload didn't get taken down by the FBI until after WikiLeaks started using it as a dropbox and anonymous started using it to coordinate actions. Copyright infringement laws are doing the same thing that anti-terrorist laws have been doing since 2001; making illegal government actions legal by decree. Paypal is playing along...and as far as I'm concerned, that makes them worse than any pirate.
  
  Still have to wait 2-3 days for the last of my paypal balance to transfer to my bank account so I can close paypal forever.
  

  
  

  24.11.2012 08:32 #24

• sternrulez

  This story actually surprises me, with Paybay being the money grubbing-bastards that they are, I thought they'd be thrilled to take their cut. They don't have a problem with collecting Ebay auction fees, then hitting the seller up again for Paypal fees, and they call OTHERS pirates? lmao! (for the uninitiated, Ebay bought out Paypal a while ago...)

  24.11.2012 15:43 #25

• plissken13x

  Originally posted by vbdragon: "Merchants must provide PayPal with free access to their service, so PayPal's Acceptable Us Policy department can monitor content."
  
  It seems that even if you don't use PayPal, they want access to all customer's "content".
  So, any merchant that uses PayPal has given access to their services to PayPal. Irrespective of any Privacy Laws and without a Federal or State warrant!!
  
  What Federal Court or Federal Bill gave PayPal the duty of controlling & enforcing all copywrite laws??
  
  There goes some more civil liberties!
  You just got bent over & you didn't even feel a thing! Actually PayPal would rather not be monitoring merchants. They would rather be making money than fighting customers. They can care less about the buyers right now. Due to liability laws, financial businesses are expected to know that their customers are in compliance with the law or the law typically comes down on the financial processor. It doesn't matter if you are visa, alert pay, PayPal, or any online remittance, they are freaking out about the file sharers because of illicit content. All in all if the file sharers go to court they can be held as defendants, and they are not going to pay multi-millions if they can help it.

  25.11.2012 12:02 #26

• ZippyDSM

  Originally posted by plissken13x: Originally posted by vbdragon: "Merchants must provide PayPal with free access to their service, so PayPal's Acceptable Us Policy department can monitor content."
  
  It seems that even if you don't use PayPal, they want access to all customer's "content".
  So, any merchant that uses PayPal has given access to their services to PayPal. Irrespective of any Privacy Laws and without a Federal or State warrant!!
  
  What Federal Court or Federal Bill gave PayPal the duty of controlling & enforcing all copywrite laws??
  
  There goes some more civil liberties!
  You just got bent over & you didn't even feel a thing! Actually PayPal would rather not be monitoring merchants. They would rather be making money than fighting customers. They can care less about the buyers right now. Due to liability laws, financial businesses are expected to know that their customers are in compliance with the law or the law typically comes down on the financial processor. It doesn't matter if you are visa, alert pay, PayPal, or any online remittance, they are freaking out about the file sharers because of illicit content. All in all if the file sharers go to court they can be held as defendants, and they are not going to pay multi-millions if they can help it.
  Whats funny tho only those with millions will lose anything.
  

  Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
  
  ---
  Check out my crappy creations
  http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

  25.11.2012 12:05 #27

• DVDBack23

  Originally posted by sternrulez: This story actually surprises me, with Paybay being the money grubbing-bastards that they are, I thought they'd be thrilled to take their cut. They don't have a problem with collecting Ebay auction fees, then hitting the seller up again for Paypal fees, and they call OTHERS pirates? lmao! (for the uninitiated, Ebay bought out Paypal a while ago...) They took their cut for a decade now :)
  

  AfterDawn News
  AfterDawn Guides
  AfterDawn Downloads
  AfterDawn Hardware Section

  25.11.2012 12:36 #28

• IguanaC64

  I'd be interested in proof that financial companies are liable for illegal activities of their customers if they don't have proof the activities are illegal. A good friend of mine who used to bar tend at a strip club said credit cards were constantly used to pay for prostitution. I don't think I've seen a story yet about Mastercard getting dragged into court over this kind of usage. This would likely be different if you KNEW or had proof the transaction was illegal and did nothing about it, but that's not what Paypal is doing. Use of Usenet does not automatically constitute an illegal act.

  26.11.2012 16:53 #29

• plissken13x

  Originally posted by IguanaC64: I'd be interested in proof that financial companies are liable for illegal activities of their customers if they don't have proof the activities are illegal. A good friend of mine who used to bar tend at a strip club said credit cards were constantly used to pay for prostitution. I don't think I've seen a story yet about Mastercard getting dragged into court over this kind of usage. This would likely be different if you KNEW or had proof the transaction was illegal and did nothing about it, but that's not what Paypal is doing. Use of Usenet does not automatically constitute an illegal act. Ask and you shall receive. The law is part of the Regulatory Compliance/BSA/AML Act. If anyone here has ever worked for a financial institution in the US you should be no stranger to this. Basically, it entails that if illegal activity is discovered you must report it, and you MUST insure that your customers are within good standing (legal). I have included a link to an overview of a Compliance/BSA/AML Government site, but there are many of them in detail if you Google. Let me segue to what happens with PayPal. If you are a business that are prone to court cases, or media attention....they will attempt to distance themselves away from you as they do not want to be involved nor want to be named as a defendant in a court case. I stress be named as a defendant in a court case. File sharers are nothing new here, if you remember you could use Paypal back in day to pay for limewire. Limewire ended up committing suicide before they had a chance to move away, but the concept is the same. There is a lot of debate about the legalities of who has the rights to the files, and is it legal with these services. One country it may be legal, and another it may be illegal. They have to abide by all jurisdictions. These companies are all big $$$ companies, and they would love to keep and this is the reason why they have lasted this long with them. I willing to bet that they got 1 supeona too many and this is where we are now. Anyone that has worked for a financial institution of any kind will tell you when the lawsuits come out they tend to try and cut off the money. Unfortunately, Paypal gets the whipping boy treatment when they never "out" the reason for the decision because what company wouldn't want to take your money?
  
  http://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/d...ML_Man_2010.pdf
  

  26.11.2012 23:01 #30

• IguanaC64

  While I didn't know the specific laws that governed their actions, I knew they existed. If you know someone is doing something illegal, it's your legal responsibility to report it.
  
  It seems, in this case they are going well beyond their legal requirements that you outlined to do so. They have gone beyond reporting. I'm not sure what in the laws you stated gives them the right to do this. Their responsibilities should end at reporting them and stopping activity...not siezing their assets and demanding access to confidential data.

  27.11.2012 12:20 #31

• Mrguss

  Originally posted by plissken13x: Originally posted by IguanaC64: I'd be interested in proof that financial companies are liable for illegal activities of their customers... Ask and you shall receive. The law is part of the Regulatory Compliance/BSA/AML Act....
  
  http://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/d...ML_Man_2010.pdf Just my 2 cents:
  Just like Paypal, it happen to Western-Union 1 1/2 years ago.
  

  +5000

  27.11.2012 16:02 #32

• IguanaC64

  Didn't Western Union get slammed because of the rampant consumer fraud? Western Union seemed to be doing zero due diligence. I can understand Paypal not wanting to follow Western Union's example, but they've gone from doing due diligence to active policing (in a way that coincidentally nets them a lot of free cash (asset seizure)...whether legimately or not).

  27.11.2012 16:39 #33

• Mrguss

  Originally posted by IguanaC64: Didn't Western Union get slammed because of the rampant consumer fraud? Western Union seemed to be doing zero due diligence. I can understand Paypal not wanting to follow Western Union's example, but they've gone from doing due diligence to active policing (in a way that coincidentally nets them a lot of free cash (asset seizure)...whether legimately or not). + and most for supporters funding terrorist groups around the world: "New laws" :)
  

  +5000

  27.11.2012 18:02 #34

• IguanaC64

  Haha...yeah...I noticed a LOT of mentions about these laws being used to fight terrorism in the BSA/AML link above. Paypal is using what seems to be mostly an anti-terrorism law to seize assets of any company they suspect of doing something shady. I'm sure Al Qaeda has puppet Usenet providers as fund raising fronts for terrorism (they're so much more profitable than growing poppy flowers for drugs).

  27.11.2012 18:06 #35

• Mrguss

  Everything is about after 9-11 and "The New Laws" to control the people into a "like" police state fashion and kill competition on anything, around the world: GREED
  
  My Opinion:
  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A4PGrjUCQAEYK65.jpg:large
  
  CIA Created Afghan Heroin Trade:
  | http://bit.ly/Shm7M5
  American War Contractors [Video]
  http://ti.me/Xu2hBl
  Afghanistan [Photos]
  http://publicintelligence.net/us-afghan...py-fields-2012/
  http://publicintelligence.net/more-phot...in-afghanistan/
  http://publicintelligence.net/even-more...in-afghanistan/
  

  +5000

  27.11.2012 18:59 #36

• FredBun

  Years ago I saw right thru them, decided this is not for me, am glad I never got involved.
  

  2.12.2012 05:49 #37