<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;paypal&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:19:03 PST</pubDate>
<title>Google Looks To Cut 'Funding' To 'Illegal' Sites It Doesn't Fund In The First Place</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130218/14412622019/google-looks-to-cut-funding-to-illegal-sites-it-doesnt-fund-first-place.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130218/14412622019/google-looks-to-cut-funding-to-illegal-sites-it-doesnt-fund-first-place.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few folks have pointed us to this odd article at the UK's Telegraph, in which it claims that Google is <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/9875339/Google-looks-to-cut-funds-to-illegal-sites.html" target="_blank">"in discussions with payment companies"</a> to stop funding to "illegal download websites."  There are a bunch of problems with this, with the first one being, huh?  It's not clear what Google has to do with any of this.  The article claims that Google is talking to Visa, Mastercard and PayPal, but why should that be any of Google's concern in the first place.  All three of those payment providers are already quite well known for cutting off payments to sites they don't like, including sites accused of being involved in copyright infringement.  So what good would further discussions do?
<br /><br />
And, of course, really this sounds exactly like Google's response to SOPA.  When quizzed about what should be done, Google supported what was called the "follow the money" approach, which was all about getting companies, like Visa, Mastercard and Paypal, to cut off funding to sites deemed to be "illegal."  And, that was a component of SOPA -- which Google had hinted would be acceptable (which is yet another point that disproves the whole "SOPA only died because of Google" narrative, since Google would have been perfectly fine with a bill that was just "follow the money.")
<br /><br />
If it's true that Google is looking to partner up with these payment processors under some sort of "voluntary" agreement, that's still confusing (what is Google's role here again?), but also quite troubling.  The problem, as always, is how do you define "illegal" or sites "dedicated to copyright infringement."  Once again, nearly every important technological breakthrough that later became a central piece to how we distribute, promote, consume and monetize content was initially decried for its "infringing" uses.  The radio, cable TV, the VCR, the MP3 player, the DVR, YouTube and much much more were all declared "dedicated to infringing uses" by the industry who sought to make them all illegal.  Imagine where YouTube would be if such a rule was in place, and their ability to make any revenue was completely barred by such a "voluntary" agreement?  Imagine where the VCR would be if no one could sell them since payment processors would refuse to process them?
<br /><br />
If this move goes through, it won't be good for the entertainment companies, though it could be good for Google, since it would effectively lock in players like YouTube, and really limit the ability of anyone else to jump into that market.  The bizarre part is, of course, that this would be a result of the entertainment industry really pushing Google to do this sort of thing, even though it clearly works to their disadvantage.  The end result would be fewer platforms and less competition in the space, giving the few dominant players today much more leverage.
<br /><br />
Even so, such a move would still likely come back to bite Google too, because Google benefits from others pushing the innovation envelope as well, creating new markets and services that are good for Google.  Cutting off innovative startups by declaring them "illegal" is likely to kill a bunch of good ideas that would have helped the entertainment industry, while still doing nothing of any significance to actually stop infringement.
<br /><br />
Either way, if this report is accurate, like with Google <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120810/10465419988/google-caves-to-hollywood-pressure-will-now-punish-sites-that-get-lots-valid-dmca-notices.shtml">caving</a> to Hollywood's demands over search rankings, it won't satisfy Hollywood (nothing will), it won't stop infringement, but it likely will make consumers worse off by killing off important innovations.  That's a shame.  Furthermore, it would be yet another example of SOPA happening anyway, despite the protests against the law.
<br /><br />
Hopefully the rumors (as confusing as they are) are just rumors and Google execs are smart enough not to bow down to such ridiculous pressure.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130218/14412622019/google-looks-to-cut-funding-to-illegal-sites-it-doesnt-fund-first-place.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130218/14412622019/google-looks-to-cut-funding-to-illegal-sites-it-doesnt-fund-first-place.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130218/14412622019/google-looks-to-cut-funding-to-illegal-sites-it-doesnt-fund-first-place.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>huh?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130218/14412622019</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 03:44:57 PST</pubDate>
<title>PayPal Freezes Funds Of Famed Swedish ISP Twice</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121225/01255621481/paypal-freezes-funds-famed-swedish-isp-twice.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121225/01255621481/paypal-freezes-funds-famed-swedish-isp-twice.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I have to admit I'm a bit surprised they relied on PayPal in the first place, but PRQ, the famed Swedish ISP created by two of the guys behind The Pirate Bay, and which (as you might imagine) was known for standing up for its users against legal threats, has had <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/paypal-bans-bittorrent-friendly-hosting-provider-prq-121224/?utm_source=dlvr.it&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">its PayPal account frozen <i>twice</i></a> for unclear reasons.  Apparently PayPal had been working just fine for three years, and then suddenly the account was frozen.  Employees contacted PayPal, who told PRQ to just set up a second PayPal account for users to use until they sorted things out, and then they'd merge the two accounts.  Instead... they froze the second one as well.  Of course, if you follow stories involving PayPal, this is hardly uncommon.  It seems to happen all too frequently with many sites that use it.  PayPal works hard to try to minimize fraud, but it seems to have a super itchy trigger finger to completely shut down sites with no warning and little process for appeal.  Relying on it as a sole payment offering seems to be asking for trouble.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121225/01255621481/paypal-freezes-funds-famed-swedish-isp-twice.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121225/01255621481/paypal-freezes-funds-famed-swedish-isp-twice.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121225/01255621481/paypal-freezes-funds-famed-swedish-isp-twice.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>fool-me-once...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121225/01255621481</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:51:04 PST</pubDate>
<title>Skype Accused Of Handing Out Private Info To Private Company</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121106/02133820945/skype-accused-handing-out-private-info-to-private-company.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121106/02133820945/skype-accused-handing-out-private-info-to-private-company.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over the last year or so, there's been concern about Skype's commitment to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/19283519848/clearing-air-skype-most-what-you-read-was-not-accurate-there-are-still-reasons-to-worry.shtml">privacy</a> following its acquisition by Microsoft.  Now a situation in the Netherlands is serving to renew those fears.  As highlighted by <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/11/06/0333221/skype-hands-teenagers-information-to-private-firm?utm_source=slashdot&utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">Slashdot</a>, it appears that Skype <a href="http://www.nu.nl/internet/2950158/skype-hands-16-year-olds-personal-information-to-it-company.html" target="_blank">handed over information on a 16-year-old user to a private information technology firm</a> that was investigating some denial of service attacks against PayPal.
<br /><br />
The security firm, iSIGHT, was hired by PayPal to investigate the attacks, and an employee of the company reached out to Skype seeking information about one user who he thought might be involved.  And Skype coughed up the info -- including username, real name, email address and home address -- no questions asked.  As the article notes, there was no court order or anything like that.  Just a guy from a private company asking and Skype said, "sure, here's all the info."
<br /><br />
There are questions about whether this move violated some European privacy directives.  At the very least it seems clear that it violated Skype's own policies, which include not providing customer data unless required by law, or if official law enforcement is involved.  In this case, neither thing is true.  One hopes that this is just a one-off mistake by Skype, but it's worrying nonetheless.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121106/02133820945/skype-accused-handing-out-private-info-to-private-company.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121106/02133820945/skype-accused-handing-out-private-info-to-private-company.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121106/02133820945/skype-accused-handing-out-private-info-to-private-company.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>massive-fail</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121106/02133820945</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 04:25:52 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Authors Can Sleep Easy Now; Paypal Reverses Its Censorship Decision</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/21091718095/authors-can-sleep-easy-now-paypal-reverses-its-censorship-decision.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/21091718095/authors-can-sleep-easy-now-paypal-reverses-its-censorship-decision.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Just last week, we learned PayPal had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/17363217939/paypal-pressured-to-play-morality-cop-forces-smashwords-to-censor-authors.shtml">implemented policies</a> that would limit the types of erotic fiction ebook publishers could sell. This sparked quite the discussion and outrage among those not just interested in protecting erotica, but also interested in preserving the freedom of authors to publish what they want. Among this commotion was a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120309/14044418056/tell-paypal-to-stop-playing-morality-cop-with-booksellers.shtml">number of movements</a> to put pressure back on PayPal to stop them from implementing these policies. We now know that these efforts have paid off. Mark Coker of Smashwords announced that PayPal has changed its position and will continue to <a href="http://blog.smashwords.com/2012/03/paypal-revises-policies-to-allow-legal.html" target="_blank">allow the sale of legal fiction through online ebook publishers</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>In a victory for free speech, PayPal today announced plans to revise their content policies to allow Smashwords writers full freedom to publish and sell legal ebooks. <br /><br /> This is a victory for all writers and readers. It removes credit card companies, banks and payment processors from the business of censoring legal fiction. It creates a new precedent that should allow other payment processors who have previously discriminated against legal fiction to relax their policies. <br /><br /> It will make more fiction more available to more readers. It gives writers greater freedom to express themselves. It gives readers more freedom to decide what they want to experience in the privacy of their own imagination. </i>
</blockquote>
In addition to Smashwords' comments, PayPal went to its blog to publicly explain <a href="https://www.thepaypalblog.com/2012/03/update-paypal%E2%80%99s-acceptable-use-policy/" target="_blank">what this new policy means for ebook authors and readers</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>First and foremost, we are going to focus this policy only on e-books that contain potentially illegal images, not e-books that are limited to just text. The policy will prohibit use of PayPal for the sale of e-books that contain child pornography, or e-books with text and obscene images of rape, bestiality or incest (as defined by the U.S. legal standard for obscenity: material that appeals to the prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value). </i>
</blockquote>
Under the new policy, only books with graphic images that fall under the US based Miller test will be affected. Going forward, PayPal will also be taking a more targeted approach to enforcement. Instead of focusing on entire classes of fiction, it will work on a book by book basis. This specific change should allow for a better process in which the affected authors can appeal the decision to remove their works while getting the individual focus such decisions deserve. 
<br /><br /> 
Just as has been seen with SOPA and ACTA, this decision by PayPal came about because the wider internet community came together to protest PayPal's earlier decision. As Mark describes in his blog post, it was the efforts of several advocacy groups, authors, bloggers, petition signers and the letters and phone calls from everyone that made this happen. This is the power of the digital culture we all share. We have the ability to change policies for the better of the world. I look forward to seeing what else is possible.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/21091718095/authors-can-sleep-easy-now-paypal-reverses-its-censorship-decision.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/21091718095/authors-can-sleep-easy-now-paypal-reverses-its-censorship-decision.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/21091718095/authors-can-sleep-easy-now-paypal-reverses-its-censorship-decision.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>freedom-of-expression-is-not-dead</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120313/21091718095</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 Mar 2012 14:54:42 PST</pubDate>
<title>Tell Paypal To Stop Playing Morality Cop With Booksellers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120309/14044418056/tell-paypal-to-stop-playing-morality-cop-with-booksellers.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120309/14044418056/tell-paypal-to-stop-playing-morality-cop-with-booksellers.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We recently wrote about how Paypal was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/17363217939/paypal-pressured-to-play-morality-cop-forces-smashwords-to-censor-authors.shtml">pressuring Smashwords</a> to drop any books that included sexual content that Paypal didn't like.  This seemed ridiculously over-aggressive.  You can be completely against rape without that meaning that no books shall exist that include a rape scene.  But according to Paypal's rules, books that include themes around rape, incest and bestiality -- even if such books were there to raise awareness around those things, not to encourage them -- simply were not allowed.  Smashwords claims that Paypal is passing the blame on to the credit card companies, but others have questioned how accurate that really is.  And, even then, it seems that Paypal should stand up to the credit card companies if that is, indeed, the case.
<br /><br />
In the meantime, the EFF has put together a letter writing campaign to <a href="https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8515&#038;a" target="_blank">tell Paypal to stop censoring books</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Recently, PayPal gave online publishers and booksellers, including BookStrand.com, Smashwords, and eXcessica, an ultimatum: it would close their accounts and refuse to process all payments unless they removed erotic books containing descriptions of rape, incest, and bestiality. The result would severely restrict the public's access to a wide range of legal material, could drive some companies out of business, and deprive some authors of their livelihood.
<br /><br />
Financial services providers should be neutral when it comes to lawful online speech. PayPal&#8217;s policy underscores how vulnerable such speech can be and how important it is to stand up and protect it.
<br /><br />
The topics PayPal would ban have been depicted in world literature since Sophocles&#8217; Oedipus and Ovid&#8217;s Metamorphoses. And while the books currently affected may not appear to be in the same league, many works ultimately recognized for their literary, historical, and artistic worth were reviled when first published.  Books like Ulysses and Lady Chatterley&#8217;s Lover were banned as &#8220;obscene&#8221; in the United States because of their sexual content. The works of Marquis de Sade, which include descriptions of incest, torture, and rape, were considered scandalous when written, although his importance in the history of literature and political and social philosophy is now widely acknowledged. 
</i></blockquote>
You can go to the link above and add your name to the campaign and let Paypal know that this is not the role of a payment processor.
<br /><br />
Of course, what this story is really highlighting is just how ridiculous it is that there are choke points like Paypal who can solely dictate morality based on their own views of what is and what is not art.  What we need are <i>a lot</i> of alternatives, so that if Paypal makes decisions like this, people can simply route around them.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120309/14044418056/tell-paypal-to-stop-playing-morality-cop-with-booksellers.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120309/14044418056/tell-paypal-to-stop-playing-morality-cop-with-booksellers.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120309/14044418056/tell-paypal-to-stop-playing-morality-cop-with-booksellers.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>let-payments-go-free</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120309/14044418056</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:21:18 PST</pubDate>
<title>Paypal Pressured To Play Morality Cop And Forces Smashwords To Censor Authors</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/17363217939/paypal-pressured-to-play-morality-cop-forces-smashwords-to-censor-authors.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/17363217939/paypal-pressured-to-play-morality-cop-forces-smashwords-to-censor-authors.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We have become quite accustomed to Paypal <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100124/1846137886.shtml">arbitrarily</a> <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101204/16050612129/paypal-latest-to-cut-off-wikileaks.shtml">deciding</a>&nbsp;to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111206/02515216987/paypal-acts-as-grinch-over-money-raised-charity-using-wrong-button-finally-bows-to-internet-pressure.shtml">shut</a> <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/11202916417/paypal-freezes-diasporas-account.shtml">down</a> the payment services for a website with no warning and little recourse. Usually when it does so, it acts through its own volition. However, Paypal also has to deal with the whims of the credit card companies with which it is partnered. With that business arrangement, when a credit card company says to jump, Paypal must comply. When it does so, it effects all its own customers as well. Ebook publisher Smashwords reports that it has become one of the latest recipients of one such action. Under pressure from credit card providers, Paypal has put in place a policy that it would no longer process payments for ebooks that contained themes of rape, incest, beastiality and underage sexual content. It then decided <a href="https://www.smashwords.com/press/release/27" target="_blank">to give Smashwords less than a week to remove all books that fit those criteria</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>On Saturday, February 18, PayPal&rsquo;s enforcement division contacted Smashwords with an ultimatum. As with the other ebook retailers affected by this enforcement, PayPal gave us only a few days to achieve compliance otherwise they threatened to deactivate our PayPal services. I've had multiple conversations with PayPal over the last several days to better understand their requirements. Their team has been helpful, forthcoming and supportive of the Smashwords mission. I appreciate their willingness to engage in dialogue. Although they have tried their best to delineate their policies, gray areas remain.<br /><br /> Their hot buttons are bestiality, rape-for-titillation, incest and underage erotica. </i>
</blockquote>
This has put tremendous pressure on Smashwords to comply as it claims that it would be near impossible to change payment processors as Paypal is a major part in not only how it processes transactions but also how it pays its authors.&nbsp;So it has made several changes to its terms of service to account for the types of books that Paypal and its credit card partners are not happy about. Keep in mind, this is hard for Smashwords as it feels that authors of erotica are being unfairly targeted by this move.<blockquote> <i>We do not want to see PayPal clamp down further against erotica. We think our authors should be allowed to publish erotica. Erotica, despite the attacks it faces from moralists, is a category worthy of protection. Erotica allows readers to safely explore aspects of sexuality that they might never want to explore in the real world. <br /><br /> The moralists forget that we humans are all sexual creatures, and the biggest sex organ is the brain. If it were not the case, none of us would be here. Erotica authors are facing discrimination, plain and simple. Topics that are perfectly acceptable in mainstream fiction are verboten in erotica. That&rsquo;s not fair. </i>
</blockquote>
This is an unfortunate set back for Smashwords as well as for indie authors. While the government in the US is not able to censor speech in this manner, there is little preventing a private company like Paypal or its credit card partners from taking these actions. Yet, Smashwords is not giving up hope.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smashwords.com/press/release/28" target="_blank">In its latest update</a>,&nbsp;Smashwords notes that it had managed to get the deadline extended as well as the definitions of prohibited content relaxed. It also wants to clarify that neither it nor Paypal are the real villians in this issue.
<blockquote>
<i>A lot of people have been attacking Smashwords for my decision to comply with PayPal's requirements. They're pointing their arrows at the wrong target, and they're not helping their cause. We're working to effect positive long term change for the entire Smashwords community, and that includes all our erotica authors and readers. <br /><br /> Over the weekend, many Smashwords authors and publishers demanded we abandon PayPal and find a new payment processor. It's not so simple, and it doesn't solve the greater problem hanging over everyone's head. PayPal is trying to implement the requirements of credit card companies, banks and credit unions. This is where it's all originating. These same requirements will eventually rain down upon every other payment processor. PayPal is trying to maintain their relationships with the credit card companies and banks, just as we want to maintain our relationship with PayPal. People who argue PayPal is the evil villain and we should drop them are missing the bigger picture. Should we give up on accepting credit cards forever? The answer is no. This goes beyond PayPal. Imagine the implications if credit card companies start going after the major ebook retailers who sell erotica?</i>
</blockquote>
Smashwords then continues by expressing its goal of pulling the credit card companies out into the open to discuss these issues. The behavior of the credit card companies shown here is exactly the type of behavior we advocated against when fighting SOPA/PIPA. Those bills would have given credit card processors the abiltity to kill payment services to companies alledged to be illegal. We warned that such behavior would result in additional harm as legal speech would be swept up along with the potentially illegal speech. Here we see just that. These credit card companies are using their position to censor speech -- some of which may violate obscenity laws, but much of which is likely perfectly legal, protected speech.  This is a no win situation for Smashwords. By complying, it must censor the speech of its authors. By not complying, it would lose the ability to serve all its authors. <br /><br /> Finally, Smashwords suggests a plan of action. It wants everyone to work together to put public pressure on the credit card companies in order to get them to change their stance. We saw how effective such efforts were with SOPA/PIPA. We managed to pressure <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111227/11480517205/godaddy-officially-has-name-removed-judiciarys-list-sopa-supporters.shtml">Godaddy</a> and the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14484017493/esa-tucks-its-tail-between-its-legs-pulls-sopa-support.shtml">ESA</a> to drop their support. We can do the same for these credit card companies and their policies that result in censorship.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/17363217939/paypal-pressured-to-play-morality-cop-forces-smashwords-to-censor-authors.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/17363217939/paypal-pressured-to-play-morality-cop-forces-smashwords-to-censor-authors.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/17363217939/paypal-pressured-to-play-morality-cop-forces-smashwords-to-censor-authors.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>censorship-is-obscene</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120301/17363217939</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:53:39 PST</pubDate>
<title>PayPal Acts As Grinch Over Money Raised For Charity Using 'Wrong Button'; Finally Bows To Internet Pressure</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111206/02515216987/paypal-acts-as-grinch-over-money-raised-charity-using-wrong-button-finally-bows-to-internet-pressure.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111206/02515216987/paypal-acts-as-grinch-over-money-raised-charity-using-wrong-button-finally-bows-to-internet-pressure.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ PayPal is pretty famous for the fact that almost no one likes it.  It's why we're finally starting to see some alternatives springing up (or getting ready to spring up).  And yet, it still seems to go out of its way to make bad decisions.  The latest, via Consumerist, is that it <a href="http://consumerist.com/2011/12/paypal-rains-on-regretsys-secret-santa-campaign-over-use-of-wrong-button.html" target="_blank">completely shut down a charitable "secret santa" program that regretsy set up</a>, all because the site <a href="http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/04/fuck-you-paypal/" target="_blank">used the "donate" button</a>, rather than one of its other buttons.  According to PayPal, only registered non-profits are supposed to use the donate button.  Of course, rather than point this out to regretsy, it let a bunch of transactions go through, and was requiring that they all be reversed... though PayPal would keep the transaction fees (of course).  Apparently, in the mind of PayPal, no one but a non-profit ever asked for donations for anything.  Seriously, though, if PayPal has such strict rules for using the donation button, why not, um, make companies prove their status <i>before</i> they can set up a site using the donate button?
<br /><br />
Either way, as can happen when someone in PR finally wakes up to what's happening online, the public response to this Grinch-like effort is that <a href="http://consumerist.com/2011/12/paypal-bows-to-internet-scorn-agrees-to-release-regretsys-funds.html">PayPal has agreed to back down</a>.  Of course, it shouldn't have taken a flood of negative publicity for PayPal to realize that it screwed up here.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111206/02515216987/paypal-acts-as-grinch-over-money-raised-charity-using-wrong-button-finally-bows-to-internet-pressure.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111206/02515216987/paypal-acts-as-grinch-over-money-raised-charity-using-wrong-button-finally-bows-to-internet-pressure.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111206/02515216987/paypal-acts-as-grinch-over-money-raised-charity-using-wrong-button-finally-bows-to-internet-pressure.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>does-anyone-like-paypal?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111206/02515216987</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:52:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>PayPal Freezes Diaspora's Account</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/11202916417/paypal-freezes-diasporas-account.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/11202916417/paypal-freezes-diasporas-account.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ PayPal has an unfortunate reputation for arbitrarily shutting down accounts for various organizations, without much rhyme or reason.  The latest is that it has <a href="http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2011/10/19/diaspora-paypal-blocked-our-account-and-is-preventing-donations/" target="_blank">frozen the donation account for Diaspora</a>, the heavily hyped up effort to create an open source, distributed Facebook alternative.  Diaspora kicked off with a ton of money via Kickstarter, but (as we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100621/0153299884.shtml">worried</a>) the project has proven to be more difficult to get off the ground than some expected.  It recently sought more donations... only to discover that PayPal <a href="http://blog.diasporafoundation.org/2011/10/18/paypal-arbitrarily-blocking-donations-to-diaspora.html" target="_blank">froze the account</a>.  Whether or not you agree with the project, it seems pretty ridiculous that PayPal just freezes such accounts.  We hear stories of this way too frequently for it to be a mere mistake.  The world desperately needs more payment processing options, because the ones out there today are woefully limited.  Thankfully, there is at least some movement in that arena.  We've been hearing a lot about Stripe -- a Silicon Valley payments startup, with funding from some original Paypal folks -- and, it's nice to see that they quickly jumped in <a href="http://blog.diasporafoundation.org/2011/10/19/how-diaspora-found-its-tiger-stripe-in-the-midst-of-a-paypal-fiasco.html" target="_blank">to help Diaspora</a>.  Still, the more payment solutions out there, the better off we'll be.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/11202916417/paypal-freezes-diasporas-account.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/11202916417/paypal-freezes-diasporas-account.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/11202916417/paypal-freezes-diasporas-account.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sad</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111019/11202916417</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2011 03:08:39 PDT</pubDate>
<title>PayPal Agrees To Help IFPI Cut Off Funding For Sites IFPI Doesn't Like Without Judicial Oversight</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110722/11280515209/paypal-agrees-to-help-ifpi-cut-off-funding-sites-ifpi-doesnt-like-without-judicial-oversight.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110722/11280515209/paypal-agrees-to-help-ifpi-cut-off-funding-sites-ifpi-doesnt-like-without-judicial-oversight.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=neppe">Neppe</a> 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 <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/paypal-joins-london-police-bid-to-financially-starve-illegal-websites.ars" target="_blank">cut off payments to sites it doesn't like</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/01370314750/universal-music-goes-to-war-against-popular-hip-hop-sites-blogs.shtml">declared an infringing site</a> by some in the industry), you may soon no longer be able to accept donations, thanks to the IFPI's fear of technology.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110722/11280515209/paypal-agrees-to-help-ifpi-cut-off-funding-sites-ifpi-doesnt-like-without-judicial-oversight.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110722/11280515209/paypal-agrees-to-help-ifpi-cut-off-funding-sites-ifpi-doesnt-like-without-judicial-oversight.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110722/11280515209/paypal-agrees-to-help-ifpi-cut-off-funding-sites-ifpi-doesnt-like-without-judicial-oversight.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-to-stamp-out-competition</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110722/11280515209</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:06:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Wikileaks Can Receive Visa &#038; Mastercard Donations Again... But Visa Doesn't Understand Why</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110707/17335615002/wikileaks-can-receive-visa-mastercard-donations-again-visa-doesnt-understand-why.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110707/17335615002/wikileaks-can-receive-visa-mastercard-donations-again-visa-doesnt-understand-why.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week, Wikileaks and Datacell threatened to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110705/02213614966/wikileaks-planning-legal-action-against-paypal-mastercard-visa.shtml">sue</a> Mastercard, Visa and Paypal if it didn't stop blocking payments to Wikileaks.  The claims were basically collusion charges, in that all of the major payment companies were blocking payments.  Things got strange today, however, when suddenly <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43674458" target="_blank">Datacell announced that payments worked again</a>, and clearly implied that the companies had lifted the blockade.   Except, Visa is insisting <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/07/visa-says-its-still-not-processing-transactions-wikileaks/39705/" target="_blank">that it has not lifted its ban on Wikileaks</a> and has no idea how payments are getting through.  The details seem a bit sketchy.  Some careful wording by Datacell's CEO suggest that he really just found an alternative payment gateway provider, which likely means this is a very temporary loophole, before the payment companies block again.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110707/17335615002/wikileaks-can-receive-visa-mastercard-donations-again-visa-doesnt-understand-why.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110707/17335615002/wikileaks-can-receive-visa-mastercard-donations-again-visa-doesnt-understand-why.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110707/17335615002/wikileaks-can-receive-visa-mastercard-donations-again-visa-doesnt-understand-why.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>for-the-lulz?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110707/17335615002</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Jul 2011 09:26:06 PDT</pubDate>
<title>WikiLeaks Planning Legal Action Against PayPal, MasterCard &amp; Visa</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110705/02213614966/wikileaks-planning-legal-action-against-paypal-mastercard-visa.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110705/02213614966/wikileaks-planning-legal-action-against-paypal-mastercard-visa.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There hasn't been much talk lately over the fact that PayPal, MasterCard and Visa all <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101207/09264812164/visa-mastercard-kkk-is-a-ok-wikileaks-is-wicked.shtml">cut off</a> Wikileaks late last year, after the US government freaked out about the release of some State Department Cables.  None of the firms has done a very good job explaining why this makes sense (or why they continue to allow other groups, such as the KKK to receive funding, while singling out Wikileaks).  I'm sure those three firms, which took quite a public bashing when the news originally dropped, would prefer that there not be any more talk about it.  However, Wikileaks and the payment firm they used, DataCell, are apparently <a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/07/01/heres-the-legal-complaint-wikileaks-is-threatening-to-file-against-visa-mastercard/" target="_blank">planning to file a legal complaint</a> this week against all three firms in Europe.  A draft of the complaint, which was obtained by Andy Greenberg at Forbes (linked above and embedded below), claims that the three firms violated Articles 101 and 102 of the EU Treaty, effectively a form of antitrust law.  While I tend to think many antitrust claims are merely attacks on successful companies, this seems like a case where they could make sense.  Here you have basically the only three ways for most people to transfer money easily, all agreeing to block a single (small) client from receiving money, despite no legal ruling against the operation (hell, charges haven't even been filed).  It certainly would make for an interesting case.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110705/02213614966/wikileaks-planning-legal-action-against-paypal-mastercard-visa.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110705/02213614966/wikileaks-planning-legal-action-against-paypal-mastercard-visa.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110705/02213614966/wikileaks-planning-legal-action-against-paypal-mastercard-visa.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>thought-this-would-go-away?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110705/02213614966</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 16:21:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>PayPal Sues Google Over Mobile Payment Execs; Where's The Line Between Non-Competes &amp; Trade Secrets</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110527/05252114450/paypal-sues-google-over-mobile-payment-execs-wheres-line-between-non-competes-trade-secrets.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110527/05252114450/paypal-sues-google-over-mobile-payment-execs-wheres-line-between-non-competes-trade-secrets.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ On the day Google announced its big <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/27/us-google-idUSTRE74P5FJ20110527?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&dlvrit=56505" target="_blank">mobile payment</a> system, PayPal announced that it's <a href="http://gigaom.com/2011/05/26/et-tu-beider-why-paypal-is-suing-google-execs/" target="_blank">suing Google and two former PayPal execs</a> who went to Google and were apparently heavily involved in this effort.  The focus is apparently on Osama Bedier, who apparently had spent the last couple of years at PayPal trying to do a deal with Google to power Google's offering... before jumping ship to lead Google's own effort (which does not apparently use PayPal).  Of course, as we've discussed many times, non-compete agreements are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071204/005038.shtml">unenforceable</a> in California, because California believes that you can't take away someone's right to work.   
<br><br>
What this really does is highlight the <a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-paypal-files-trade-secret-lawsuit-over-googles-mobile-payment-system/" target="_blank">fuzzy line between "right to work" concepts and trade secrets</a>.  That's because California does have strong trade secret protections.  But if an employee has a right to work... how do you remove any "trade secrets" from their previous job from their brain?  There are some details -- including accusations of transferring confidential documents to a computer right before making the job switch -- that certainly look bad.  But, on the whole, I tend to think these kinds of lawsuits are a waste of time.  Focus on actually competing in the market, rather than suing competitors.  Frankly, the world needs more payment solutions, and if there's some competition, then it should force all players to improve their game.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110527/05252114450/paypal-sues-google-over-mobile-payment-execs-wheres-line-between-non-competes-trade-secrets.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110527/05252114450/paypal-sues-google-over-mobile-payment-execs-wheres-line-between-non-competes-trade-secrets.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110527/05252114450/paypal-sues-google-over-mobile-payment-execs-wheres-line-between-non-competes-trade-secrets.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>is-there-a-line?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110527/05252114450</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:42:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The 'Other' One-Click Patent Holder Sues Apple, Paypal... And Victoria's Secret</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03581313527/other-one-click-patent-holder-sues-apple-paypal-victorias-secret.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03581313527/other-one-click-patent-holder-sues-apple-paypal-victorias-secret.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A couple years ago, we wrote about how Amazon, holder of the extremely infamous "one-click patent," had been sued by another firm, Cordance, claiming to hold a one-click patent.  About a year and a half ago, Amazon apparently <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090827/0241206016.shtml">won</a> that case.  Unfortunately, a judge <a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/07/27/amazon-allowed-to-keep-infringing-one-click-system/" target="_blank">effectively overruled the jury</a>, saying that some of the claims the jury insisted were invalid were actually valid.  Thanks to that, it appears that Cordance is back, and <a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-apple-and-paypal-hit-with-lawsuit-over-patent-for-one-click/" target="_blank">is suing Apple, PayPal and Victoria's Secret</a>, claiming they all violate its one-click patent (<a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=XncSAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=6,757,710" target="_blank">6,757,710</a>).  The patent seems to be crazy vague.  It's still stunning that anyone -- let alone two people -- can hold a patent for letting someone buy something with one click.  Separately, the article notes that Victoria's Secret is currently dealing with five separate active patent lawsuits, all based in East Texas (of course).  Kind of makes you wonder if someone thinks that the models will actually show up to defend the company...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03581313527/other-one-click-patent-holder-sues-apple-paypal-victorias-secret.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03581313527/other-one-click-patent-holder-sues-apple-paypal-victorias-secret.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03581313527/other-one-click-patent-holder-sues-apple-paypal-victorias-secret.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>are-they-hoping-to-get-paid-in-models?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110317/03581313527</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:33:59 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Judge Lets Sony Go After PS3 Jailbreaker's PayPal Account</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03415613526/judge-lets-sony-go-after-ps3-jailbreakers-paypal-account.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03415613526/judge-lets-sony-go-after-ps3-jailbreakers-paypal-account.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Sony's ridiculous and over-aggressive lawsuit against George Hotz (Geohot) for jailbreaking the PS3 keeps reaching new absurd levels.  The latest is that the magistrate judge, who seems to be rubber stamping most of Sony's requests, is allowing the company <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/playstation-hacker-paypal/" target="_blank">to subpoena Paypal for Geohot's account records</a>.  We've already discussed how she's allowing subpoenas for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110304/16012513367/judge-says-no-anonymity-anyone-who-visited-geohots-ps3-hacking-website-watched-youtube-video.shtml">visitors</a> to Geohot's website, as well as for whoever watched the YouTube video he put up about the jailbreak.  Sony claims it needs access to his Paypal records to prove that people in California may have donated.  They want that so that they can establish California as the proper jurisdiction for hearing the case.  Frankly, this is ridiculous.  First, who donated to Geohot should not be even remotely meaningful in determining the proper jurisdiction for the case.  Where Hotz is located should outweigh any donor locations.  Second, shouldn't the judge be somewhat concerned with the privacy aspects here?  In giving up Geohot's Paypal info, isn't this exposing the info of anyone who might have donated, without them having the ability to stop it?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03415613526/judge-lets-sony-go-after-ps3-jailbreakers-paypal-account.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03415613526/judge-lets-sony-go-after-ps3-jailbreakers-paypal-account.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03415613526/judge-lets-sony-go-after-ps3-jailbreakers-paypal-account.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>seriously?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110317/03415613526</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:58:05 PST</pubDate>
<title>PayPal Turns Bradley Manning Defense Account Back On; Claims It Was A Paperwork Problem</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110225/10223413256/paypal-turns-bradley-manning-defense-account-back-claims-it-was-paperwork-problem.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110225/10223413256/paypal-turns-bradley-manning-defense-account-back-claims-it-was-paperwork-problem.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ PayPal's decision to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110224/05013913241/paypal-cuts-off-account-bradley-manning-support.shtml">cut off</a> the account of an organization that was collecting funds to help with Bradley Manning's defense got a lot of attention -- so much that PayPal came out with a blog post <a href="https://www.thepaypalblog.com/2011/02/paypal-statement-on-courage-to-resist-situation/" target="_blank">explaining that it was just a paperwork problem</a> on the part of the organization, Courage to Resist.  Because of this, they've reinstated the account:
<blockquote><i>
We recently placed a temporary limitation of the Courage to Resist organization&rsquo;s PayPal account as they had not complied to our <a href="https://merchant.paypal.com/cms_content/US/en_US/files/merchant/paypal_nonprofit_faqs.pdf" target="_blank">stated policy</a> requiring non profits to associate a bank account with their PayPal account (for the vast majority of non-profits, this is not an issue).
<br /><br />
In a press release <a href="http://cryptome.org/0003/paypal-evil.htm" target="_blank">issued&nbsp;today</a>, the Courage to Resist organization claimed that their resistance to follow our policy is because PayPal sought to withdraw funds from their checking account.&nbsp; To be clear: PayPal cannot take such action without the authorization of an account holder, nor does it ever take such unauthorized actions.
<br /><br />
Upon review, and as part of our normal business procedures, we have decided to lift the temporary restriction placed on their account because we have sufficient information to meet our statutory 'Know Your Customer' obligations. The Courage to Resist PayPal account is now fully operational.
</i></blockquote>
While it's good that they've done this, not all of this makes sense.  Courage to Resist claims that they repeatedly asked for an explanation and for the specific policy that they had violated.  If it was just a matter of associating an account with a bank account, why didn't PayPal just tell them that in the first place?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110225/10223413256/paypal-turns-bradley-manning-defense-account-back-claims-it-was-paperwork-problem.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110225/10223413256/paypal-turns-bradley-manning-defense-account-back-claims-it-was-paperwork-problem.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110225/10223413256/paypal-turns-bradley-manning-defense-account-back-claims-it-was-paperwork-problem.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-not-what-they-said-originally</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110225/10223413256</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:11:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>PayPal Cuts Off Account For Bradley Manning Support</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110224/05013913241/paypal-cuts-off-account-bradley-manning-support.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110224/05013913241/paypal-cuts-off-account-bradley-manning-support.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's old news by this point that PayPal decided to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101204/16050612129/paypal-latest-to-cut-off-wikileaks.shtml">cut off Wikileaks</a> donations, following pressure from members of the US government (even if the State Department denies any official pressure, Joe Lieberman's public brow beating of companies shows that there was serious pressure at least from some in the government).  However, <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/glynmoody/statuses/40755477381914624" target="_blank">Glyn Moody</a> now points us to the news that PayPal has also decided to <a href="http://streamsofwikileaks.tumblr.com/post/3479677128/courage-to-resist-paypal-cuts-service-to-courage-to" target="_blank">cut off the group "Courage to Resist,"</a> which was handling funds for Bradley Manning's defense effort.  PayPal admits there's no <i>legal</i> basis for this.  Apparently, the company just doesn't believe that some people should be allowed a fair trial:
<blockquote><i>
The online payment provider PayPal has frozen the account of Courage to Resist, which in collaboration with the Bradley Manning Support Network is currently raising funds in support of U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. PayPal was one way people--especially international residents--were able to contribute to the grassroots effort supporting the accused WikiLeaks whistleblower. "We've been in discussions with PayPal for weeks, and by their own admission there&rsquo;s no legal obligation for them to close down our account," noted Loraine Reitman of the Bradley Manning Support Network (Support Network). "This was an internal policy decision by PayPal."
<br /><br />
[....]
The Support Network repeatedly requested and was refused formal documentation from PayPal describing their policies in this matter.
</i></blockquote>
The report also notes that they've had a PayPal account in good standing since 2006, with no problems at all.  It's only once they were taking funds for Bradley Manning that PayPal shut them down.  This is somewhat horrifying, frankly, and raises serious questions about PayPal as a business worth trusting.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110224/05013913241/paypal-cuts-off-account-bradley-manning-support.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110224/05013913241/paypal-cuts-off-account-bradley-manning-support.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110224/05013913241/paypal-cuts-off-account-bradley-manning-support.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>going-into-evil-territory</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110224/05013913241</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:47:22 PST</pubDate>
<title>Third Parties Increasingly Targeted In Infringement Cases</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/02103212713/third-parties-increasingly-targeted-infringement-cases.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/02103212713/third-parties-increasingly-targeted-infringement-cases.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've seen, lately, that the entertainment industry has been targeting third parties for liability.  For years, they've talked about making ISPs more "liable" for infringement, but now they're extending that web in potentially problematic ways.  Of course, this is a lot of what the whole COICA debate is about.  Part of the way COICA works is by extending liability to third parties -- ISPs, advertising partners, domain registrars, payment processors -- if they don't cut off all services to those accused of infringement (often without any adversarial hearing).  But in some cases, they're already targeting those third parties, and two separate stories on TorrentFreak demonstrate that.
<br><br>
The first involves Liberty Media <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/hotfile-1000-users-and-paypal-named-in-piracy-lawsuit-110118/" target="_blank">suing Paypal along with Hotfile (and 1,000 John Does)</a> for alleged infringement.  Hotfile is a cyberlocker, which has plenty of perfectly legitimate uses, but is also frequently used for infringement.  Liberty Media walks through a complex set of relationships, which it seems to interpret in the most nefarious way possible.  For example:
<blockquote><i>
"Demonstrating that Defendant Hotfile.com is aware of the illegality of its conduct, it offers two methods for download services. For its first option, Defendant Hotfile.com permits its partners to download a stolen movie at a very slow transfer speed for no charge. The other option allows users to pay a premium to download the movie ten times faster."
</i></blockquote>
It certainly sounds bad when you put it like that, but of course, plenty of file storage/file transfer sites offer tiered packages that involve paying for faster transfer rates.  That, in no way, demonstrates awareness of illegal content.  I'm not saying Hotfile isn't potentially liable, but claiming the tiered pricing is evidence of that seems strange.
<br><br>
But it seems even worse that Liberty is suing PayPal as well -- and I would bet that PayPal will quickly file to be dismissed from the case, as an unrelated third party, or one protected by safe harbors.  It's going to be quite a stretch for Liberty to prove that Paypal is somehow liable for the actions not just of a company that uses Paypal, but the users of that company.  It's fourth or fifth party liability, rather than third party liability.
<br><br>
The other story involves a case that's a bit further along, where a judge has ordered a <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/no-ads-or-whois-domain-protection-for-pirate-site-judge-rules-110118/" target="_blank">preliminary injunction against two ad providers and a domain registrar</a> over a website that allegedly hosts infringing scans of various books.  Since the holder of the domain is kept private via eNom's Whois Privacy Protection Service, the court ordered eNom to reveal the identity of the domain owner and to "disable the website."  The judge also ordered the two ad networks -- Clicksor and Chitika -- to stop working with the site.
<br><br>
While I could see suing the John Does behind the site, and then working to get a subpoena to identify the real parties behind the alleged infringement, directly suing these three companies seems like a huge stretch, and it's disappointing that the judge rushed to issue the injunction so quickly.  The <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/46975428/Elsevier-v-eNom-Complaint" target="_blank">original complaint</a> (pointed out by <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/ericgoldman/status/26742486575620096" target="_blank">Eric Goldman</a>, makes some ridiculously broad claims about third party liability.
<br><br>
This is unfortunate, but not a surprise.  We've been warning for the better part of a decade the problems with third party liability.  Those who benefit from it will <i>always</i> push to stretch it to dump liability on third parties who had absolutely nothing to do with the actual infringement, and often had no idea that any infringement was going on.  These payment companies, ad networks and registrars are quite far removed from any actual infringement.  As noted above, they're barely "third parties" at all, as they're really fourth or fifth parties, so far removed from the actual infringement as to make these legal actions really quite questionable.  It's hard to see how anyone can reasonably argue that a registrar or a payment processor or an ad network should somehow be liable for actions done by the <i>users</i> of a site that they work with.  If this continues it will severely stifle many of these activities, as payment providers and ad networks won't do business with all sorts of perfectly legitimate sites, just to avoid the liability of being blamed for the actions of someone two steps removed.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/02103212713/third-parties-increasingly-targeted-infringement-cases.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/02103212713/third-parties-increasingly-targeted-infringement-cases.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/02103212713/third-parties-increasingly-targeted-infringement-cases.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>getting-out-of-control</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110119/02103212713</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:59:39 PST</pubDate>
<title>Will Visa, MasterCard, Paypal, BofA &#038; Apple Terminate Relationships With The NYTimes For Revealing Military Secrets?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/04353612381/will-visa-mastercard-paypal-bofa-apple-terminate-relationships-with-nytimes-revealing-military-secrets.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/04353612381/will-visa-mastercard-paypal-bofa-apple-terminate-relationships-with-nytimes-revealing-military-secrets.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Glenn Greenwald has a post highlighting how a NY Times' <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/world/asia/21intel.html?_r=1&#038;hp" target="_blank">investigative report on US military action in Pakistan</a> appears to <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/21/nyt?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A salon%2Fgreenwald %28Glenn Greenwald%29" target="_blank">reveal key military secrets</a> concerning plans that have not yet been put in place, and which could certainly put Americans and others in danger:
<blockquote><i>
Indeed, the NYT reporters several times acknowledge that public awareness of these operations could trigger serious harm ("inside Pakistan, [] the movement of American forces has been largely prohibited because of fears of provoking a backlash").  Note, too, that Mazzetti and Filkins did not acquire these government secrets by just passively sitting around and having them delivered out of the blue.  To the contrary:  they interviewed multiple officials both in Washington and in Afghanistan, offered several of them anonymity to induce them to reveal secrets, and even provoked officials to provide detailed accounts of past secret actions in Pakistan, including CIA-directed attacks by Afghans inside that country. 
</i></blockquote>
As he notes, all of this seems a lot more revealing than anything that Wikileaks has done, and a lot more likely to put people in danger.  Yet, there's been almost no response, and certainly nothing like the attention paid to Wikileaks -- with calls for trials or even killing the head of Wikileaks.  Seems odd, doesn't it?
<br /><br />
But, an even bigger point is buried towards the end in an update, where Greenwald asks:
<blockquote><i>
Why aren't Visa, MasterCard, Paypal, their web hosting company and various banks terminating their relationships with The New York Times, the way they all did with WikiLeaks:  not only for the NYT's publication of many of the same diplomatic and war cables published by WikiLeaks, but also for this much more serious leak today in which WikiLeaks was completely uninvolved?
</i></blockquote>
And, I think, we can <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101221/09524812365/apple-latest-to-convict-wikileaks-despite-no-charges-trial-kills-wikileaks-app-violating-unnamed-laws.shtml">add Apple to that list</a>.  After all, if these companies keep claiming that Wikileaks "broke the law" (as most of the companies listed here are saying), why do they not feel the same way about the NY Times?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/04353612381/will-visa-mastercard-paypal-bofa-apple-terminate-relationships-with-nytimes-revealing-military-secrets.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/04353612381/will-visa-mastercard-paypal-bofa-apple-terminate-relationships-with-nytimes-revealing-military-secrets.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/04353612381/will-visa-mastercard-paypal-bofa-apple-terminate-relationships-with-nytimes-revealing-military-secrets.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>consistency-is-all-i-ask</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101222/04353612381</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:00:41 PST</pubDate>
<title>US IP Czar Gets Companies To Cut Off Unlicensed Online Pharmacies</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/03240112312/us-ip-czar-gets-companies-to-cut-off-unlicensed-online-pharmacies.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/03240112312/us-ip-czar-gets-companies-to-cut-off-unlicensed-online-pharmacies.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year, we noted that the US IP Czar, Victoria Espinel, had been making the rounds to ISPs, registrars, payment processors and others to get them to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100929/20293711230/even-without-coica-white-house-asking-registrars-to-voluntarily-censor-infringing-sites.shtml">agree to voluntarily</a> start shutting off certain "infringing" sites.  Now we see the results of those talks.  Espinel has announced that a variety of companies -- including Google, Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and Network Solutions -- have apparently <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12017185?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">agreed to effectively disappear and cut off certain websites</a>.  The focus, for now, is on "unlicensed web pharmacies," with the idea being that these companies will effectively kill off those sites:
<blockquote><i>
Together, the firms hope to tackle every link in the chain that keeps unlicensed pharmacies operating by stopping them showing up in search results, taking their websites offline, delisting the domains they use and stopping payments reaching them.
</i></blockquote>
Think COICA without COICA -- but just with government pressure on companies.  Seeing Visa, Mastercard and Paypal on the list certainly isn't surprising, after those three already did the same thing in cutting off Wikileaks.  However, it's a bit surprising to see Google agree to this (<b>Update</b>: Google says that it's only agreed to cut off advertising that violates its policies).  If there's a trial and these sites are found guilty of violating the law, then I can see cutting them off -- but once again, it appears that this is the government trying to kill off websites, without a trial.
<br><br>
And, yes, it's for "unlicensed web pharmacies," and everyone plays up the spam and the fake (potentially dangerous) drugs.  Those are a serious problem.  But they also lump in the (quite common) grey market pharmacies as well -- which often allow people to get drugs from outside the country at much more affordable rates.  Shutting down fake drug sellers is fine.  Shutting down the grey market drug sellers is a bit of a bigger issue.
<br><br>
On top of that, given the recent ICE domain seizures and the whole COICA law -- both of which Espinel has spoken out in favor of -- it's not hard to see how the mandate behind this particular program is quite likely to grow well beyond "unauthorized web pharmacies" to other sites as well.  In fact, MasterCard has apparently already <A href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20025879-261.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_blank">agreed to cut off websites deemed "pirate" sites</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/03240112312/us-ip-czar-gets-companies-to-cut-off-unlicensed-online-pharmacies.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/03240112312/us-ip-czar-gets-companies-to-cut-off-unlicensed-online-pharmacies.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/03240112312/us-ip-czar-gets-companies-to-cut-off-unlicensed-online-pharmacies.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>borderline...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101217/03240112312</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 9 Dec 2010 18:20:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Lieberman Praises Companies Helping Him Try To Censor Wikileaks</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/13385012218/lieberman-praises-companies-helping-him-try-to-censor-wikileaks.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/13385012218/lieberman-praises-companies-helping-him-try-to-censor-wikileaks.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This should hardly comes as a surprise, but Senator Joe Lieberman has apparently put out a statement, along with Senator Sue Collins, <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/wikileaks-congress-pressure/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A wired27b %28Blog - 27B Stroke 6 %28Threat Level%29%29" target="_blank">praising companies for following through on their political pressure to try to censor Wikileaks</a>, calling them "good corporate citizens," and saying that people should support those companies for their willingness to bow down to government pressure.  Yeah, okay.  Even the press reporting on this seem to think Lieberman is simply making stuff up.  Witness this paragraph from Wired:
<blockquote><i>
"The WikiLeaks data dump has jeopardized U.S. national interests and the lives of intelligence sources around the world," Lieberman said, though there is no proof or even detailed allegations that the release has endangered any intelligence source.
</i></blockquote>
Lieberman apparently wants the world to believe that censorship is okay because "this is no time for business as usual."  It appears that Lieberman really wants to go down in history as the Senator who favors censorship of the press and US companies.  Quite a legacy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/13385012218/lieberman-praises-companies-helping-him-try-to-censor-wikileaks.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/13385012218/lieberman-praises-companies-helping-him-try-to-censor-wikileaks.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/13385012218/lieberman-praises-companies-helping-him-try-to-censor-wikileaks.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>censorship-is-the-in-thing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101209/13385012218</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 Dec 2010 02:46:54 PST</pubDate>
<title>PayPal Latest To Cut Off Wikileaks</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101204/16050612129/paypal-latest-to-cut-off-wikileaks.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101204/16050612129/paypal-latest-to-cut-off-wikileaks.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over the weekend, Paypal became the latest company to <a href="http://www.thepaypalblog.com/statement.html" target="_blank">cut off Wikileaks' account</a>, saying that it was a "terms of service" violation -- the same excuse Amazon gave.  Of course, Wikileaks had been using Paypal for quite some time before this, so it seems pretty clear that the reasoning was (yet again) political pressure put on American companies, threatening them for working with Wikileaks.  What's funny about all of this, of course, is that it's only going to serve to give Wikileaks more attention, and drive up demand for competing services to these US companies overseas.  In an effort to "stop" access to information that is widely accessible, all the US is really doing is (a) promoting that information more while (b) harming the reputation of American companies.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101204/16050612129/paypal-latest-to-cut-off-wikileaks.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101204/16050612129/paypal-latest-to-cut-off-wikileaks.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101204/16050612129/paypal-latest-to-cut-off-wikileaks.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>political-pressure</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101204/16050612129</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Feb 2010 04:45:33 PST</pubDate>
<title>PayPal Suspends Payments In India?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100207/2220398069.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100207/2220398069.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ After the story a few weeks ago about Paypal <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100124/1846137886.shtml">suspending</a> the account of Wikileaks, and blocking it from removing money in the account, many people pointed out how risky it is to leave any money in a PayPal account.  It seems that situation is getting worse and worse.  PayPal has apparently <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35280841/ns/business-world_business/" target="_blank">halted personal payments in India, and aren't allowing merchants to remove money from their accounts</a>.  And the reasoning is... not particularly clear as to why:
<blockquote><i>
"Personal payments to and from India and transfers to local banks in India have been suspended while we work with our business partners and other stakeholders to address questions they have about the service...."
</i></blockquote>
Apparently, this has been going on for over a week, which has to be seriously frustrating to many merchants, but a seriously good thing for various PayPal competitors.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100207/2220398069.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100207/2220398069.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100207/2220398069.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that-seems-rather-big</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100207/2220398069</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:38:33 PST</pubDate>
<title>PayPal Suspends WikiLeaks Account Yet Again; Freezes Assets</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100124/1846137886.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100124/1846137886.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Wikileaks is an incredibly useful and important site, but there are many (mainly in the government) who would prefer it go away.  It's somewhat upsetting to find out that <a href="http://slashdot.org/story/10/01/23/2138204/PayPal-Freezes-the-Assets-of-Wikileaksorg" target="_blank">PayPal has (for the second time) frozen all of WikiLeaks' assets</a>.  Apparently, the last time this happened it took nearly six months to resolve.  That seems problematic:
<blockquote><i>
Paypal has as of 23rd of January 2010 frozen WikiLeaks assets. This is the second time that this happens. The last time we struggled for more than half a year to resolve this issue. By working with the respected and recognized German foundation Wau Holland Stiftung we tried to avoid this from happening again -- apparently without avail.
</i></blockquote>
<b>Update</b>: Wikileaks has now removed this message from its website, so it appears that things have been resolved.  I'm a bit confused, however, as to why Wikileaks continues to use PayPal given this issue.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100124/1846137886.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100124/1846137886.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100124/1846137886.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>no-payments-allowed</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100124/1846137886</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:12:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Paypal Charges $81 Billion To Fill Your Gas Tank... Demands Proof It Didn't Cost That Much</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090302/0119003941.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090302/0119003941.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Gas prices have gone down quite a bit since highs last summer, but it still shouldn't take long for anyone to realize that <a href="http://consumerist.com/5162108/paypal-charges-81400836908-for-26-tank-of-gas" target="_new">charging someone $81.4 billion (with a b) to fill your gas tank is a mistake</a>.  Yet, that's what happened to Juan Zamora when he put what he thought was $26 worth of gas into his car using a PayPal debit card.  And then the best part: PayPal customer service people weren't ready to believe him, arguing with him for at least 10 minutes, before realizing that, perhaps, there was a mistake on PayPal's part.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090302/0119003941.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090302/0119003941.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090302/0119003941.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>maybe-last-summer...-but-not-now...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090302/0119003941</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:09:05 PDT</pubDate>
<title>eBay Moves Closer To Forcing Users To Use PayPal</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080922/1945122336.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080922/1945122336.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall earlier this year that eBay experimented with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080505/2250221040.shtml">requiring</a> customers to use eBay-owned PayPal for payments on eBay auctions down in Australia.  However, public backlash, combined with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080612/1150351389.shtml">government threats</a> convinced eBay to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080630/0138571543.shtml">hold off</a> for the time being.  However, folks over at Slashdot are noting that eBay has now <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/22/2115217&#038;from=rss" target="_new">changed its terms of service in the US</a> to push more people towards using PayPal.  Specifically it's <a href="http://pages.ebay.com/sell/August2008Update/OtherFAQ/#3" target="_new">no longer allowing checks or money orders</a> for payments on most items, saying that electronic payments, merchant accounts or direct payment for in-person exchanges are the only options.  However, as the Slashdot post notes, in the electronic payment space, eBay then blatantly says it will not allow Google or Amazon's payment programs to operate on eBay because they compete with eBay.
<br /><br />
While eBay may be allowed to do this, it definitely seems like a good way to shoot itself in the foot.  If customers don't want to use PayPal, they're simply going to bypass eBay entirely, and use an alternative.  That not only cuts eBay out of the transaction, but also the listing fee.  eBay tries to position this as being about making the experience better for both buyers and sellers, but that's clearly untrue.  Instead, it seems like eBay is afraid to compete on the merits with its payment solution, knowing that many, many users are increasingly fed up with PayPal.  Yet, rather than fix PayPal, the company's response is to ban the competition.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080922/1945122336.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080922/1945122336.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080922/1945122336.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-good-to-be-the-king</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080922/1945122336</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>