Paypal may be backing off

[elf]

Paypal, getting pressured from many sides, is reconsidering their ban on certain kinds of erotica. Reps from several ebook publishing companies, including Mark Coker from Smashwords, have contacted them to say (1) "WTF? I mean, well, um... WTF?" and (2) "how exactly do you define these terms, because once you shift from 'incest' which has kinda-sorta a legal definition to 'pseudo-incest,' how are we supposed to know if a book fits that or not?" and also (3) "Do you have any idea how many historical novels smash into multiple areas of your new ban?" and then (4) "also, WTF?"

PayPal attempted to say it was the credit card companies demanding these changes. BannedWriters got a response from Visa: Visa had no involvement with PayPal’s conclusion on this issue. ... Visa would take no action regarding lawful material that seeks to explore erotica in a fictional or educational manner. Then they got a response from Mastercard: MasterCard had no involvement in the decision made by PayPal ... MasterCard would not take action regarding the use of its cards and systems for the sale of lawful materials that seek to explore erotica content of this nature.

Smashwords posted a quick note today (dated Mar 12, if it matters in the future; no option to link to indiv. updates): I met with PayPal this afternoon at their office in San Jose. They will soon announce revised content policies.... Details not yet available, but Smashwords is going back to its former content policies yaaay!

Bitmag talked to some people at the EFF, who have a "good feeling" about negotiations with PayPal: PayPal’s general counsel indicating that they would be “discussing it internally and might even be able to make a public statement in the next week.”

The EFF, she notes, specifically has requested that PayPal “update their policy so that this type of legal fiction would not be affected.”

Outcry against PayPal's censorship was widespread--articles were posted by the EFF, Forbes.com, Huffington Post, and Reuters and CNET.

Comments

[jecook]

This is a good thing- it's a step in the right direction.

Now if we can get them to start behaving like the financial institution that they (sort of) are, or at the very least clarify their policies and T&Cs and actually stick rigidly to them then I might be a lot happier using their services.

I've seen waaaay too many stories as of late of paypal mysteriously banning users, refusing transactions, keeping people's money for long periods of time with zero explaination, and other unpleasntries that frankly, I don't want to use them for anything, for the fear that I might run afoul of some mysterious, 'you-aren't-in-the-special-kids-group' rule and have not only my current account banned, but be banned for all eternity, with no reason given and no way to dispute it.

[dragonfly]

This.

[snottygrrl]

thanks for the links. i was aware of bits of this, but hadn't seen the credit card responses.

[jumpuphigh]

Have you read this statement from Paypal? It makes them look even more like jackasses.

[elf]

Yep; it's linked above. (Not bad that you missed it; there's a lot of links up there.) Apparently, they're reconsidering that, since hundreds of people and some rather major organizations have informed them that (1) no, these kinds of erotica books do not often contain pictures and (2) no, they don't "blur the line" between fic and nonfic either, and (3) no, it doesn't get in the way of your legal responsibilities and by the way, asshats, we've *contacted* the major credit cards and their official reaction is "we allow all legal content."

I can understand the claim of "often includes images" if PayPal decision-makers are so clueless that they can't tell the difference between erotica novels and hentai manga. (Since both are sold at online ebookstores, I can see them mixing up. Because how could anyone possibly tell the difference? Except by, y'know, reading the descriptions, or looking for keywords like "GRAPHIC NOVEL."

Not that the images are illegal, either. However, there are a few legal issues with pictures, even drawings, that don't come up for text; there are restrictions on the kinds of images you're allowed to share with minors, while there are none for text. And of course, PayPal can't be expected to have a policy that says "the following topics are not allowed in pictures...."

I hope they get hounded until they fall back to "all legal content is okay" or else have to give up the names of their money processing companies. We know Mastercard & Visa don't have a problem with "extreme" erotica, but they may be connected with a credit union or other organization that refuses to deal with money that's been involved with some businesses.

But that BS about "we draw the line at certain adult content that is extreme or potentially illegal" has got to go. "Extreme" is a major *purpose* of literature, and "potentially illegal" content includes a lot more about violence than about sex... ebooks about how to make guns or bombs or poisons would be a lot more borderline-illegal than books about adult stepsisters getting it on.

[jumpuphigh]

*facepalm* Sorry. I did totally miss it.

[tameiki]

One question I have is the term, "potentially illegal." Wouldn't content either be legal or not legal? Once a book is finished and is up for sale, the content wouldn't change itself so... there are too many unclear words used by Paypal to make me stay far away from their so-called 'services'.

[elf]

"Potentially illegal," to a sensible person, means "this would probably be illegal if it went to court." We don't have sharp lines for legal content; nobody knows if something is obscene or is copyright infringement or is fraud or libel until a court's ruled on it--but a company can say "to the best of our ability to judge, this content breaks at least one law."

Which is very different from "content with the same basic topic as content that's often illegal, is banned." Nobody's banning celebrity tell-alls because some of them include libel; nobody's banning improve-your-health books because some of them are frauds. Erotica is often singled out for categorical restrictions that have nothing to do with specific book content.

[ilthit]

Good news! Thank you for reporting.

[babaca]

Nice that they might back down. But it's not surprising that they went this route in the first place. They are owned by Ebay and I recall having doujinshis I used to sell there being pulled simply because I used the term "shota-like" in the description in my ebay selling days. The characters were drawn young-ish looking but were not children. It was the mangaka's art style. (didn't meant I still didn't sell them to whomever had bidded on it before the listing would get pulled).