PayPal, Visa, MasterCard Prepare To Block Payments To Pirate Sites In France

An anonymous reader writes: The French government is deciding whether to allow PayPal, Visa, MasterCard, and other payments processors the right to refrain from executing transactions to pirate sites if copyright holders (MPAA, RIAA, PSR for Music) file a complaint. All pirate sites will be added to a blacklist, controlled by copyright holders, and not by a French court. A similar unofficial agreement between copyright holders and payment processors is actively being enforced in countries like the U.S. and the U.K.

Comments

Common carriers

[Anonymous Coward]

Payment providers should be forced to operate like common carriers in Telecom. Either you process all payments, or you process none. Barring specific court orders of course.
If the Payment providers do not like this, they can opt for the alternative, where they take full responsibility for all payment activities, in which case they will be considered accomplishes for all crimes that involve money transfers via their services.

It is not that difficult.

Re:Common carriers

[Anonymous Coward]

Alleged drug dealers and mob bosses, but not convicted drug dealers and mob bosses. The rule of law is what separates a civil society from despotism.

Re:Common carriers

[Kjella]

So MasterCard should allow drug dealers and mob bosses to use their services?

Assuming the courts haven't seen any reason to seize the money, MasterCard shouldn't be able to decide who you're permitted to give money to or not. I should not have to justify my spending habits to the bank any more than I need to justify my food habits at the grocery store.

Re: Common carriers

[Anonymous Coward]

This right here is why attempts to go to a cashless society have to be fought with extreme vigor. We cannot allow the government or, even worse, private companies, to decide who can give money to who.

Re:Common carriers

[Solandri]

Assuming the courts haven't seen any reason to seize the money, MasterCard shouldn't be able to decide who you're permitted to give money to or not. I should not have to justify my spending habits to the bank any more than I need to justify my food habits at the grocery store.

You're assuming a credit card transaction is between you and the merchant. It's not. It's actually two separate transactions - the first is between the credit card company and the merchant, the second between you and the credit card company. Just as you have the right to decide which credit card companies you wish to do business with, the credit card company has the right to decide which merchants it wishes to do business with.

The proper grocery store analogy would be Bob runs a grocery delivery service. You tell Bob you'd like some chips and beer from the ABC grocery store. Bob tells you he doesn't buy from the ABC grocery store, and declines to make that purchase for you.

The problem isn't that MasterCard is deciding not to service these (alleged) pirate merchants. The problem is there is so little competition in the credit card industry that a single actor making a decision like this is a huge deal. To the market, a boycott is simply an opportunity for someone else to make money. If Visa, MasterCard, and Amex didn't have a stranglehold on the credit card transaction industry, some other credit card company would simply swoop in and eagerly gobble up the business of servicing the blacklisted merchants. The copyright industry cannot enforce an industry-wide ban against certain merchants unless the government decides to do so, or they get all credit card processors to go along with it willingly. The latter is a lot easier with only 3 companies controlling most of the business.

Goodbye Via and Paypal

[nospam007]

Welcome, Bitcoin.

If it wasn't already invented, now would be the time.

It's a bit tricky

[Swistak]

It's a tricky situation. The problem with paid pirated sites is that some users (read: my father-in-law for example) assume that since they pay - it must be legit. So they pay ~3$ and get infinite number of movies streamed. Because they look legit, and accept payments people fall for it, and then they are often blackmailed to pay more with threat of litigation.
So yes. I think if something is illegal it should get payments blocked.

Complaint isn't enough

[AnotherBlackHat]

We've already seen the kind of harm that is caused by abuse of the DMCA via automated take down requests.

Blocking payment should at a minimum require a judge to sign off on it.

" if something is illegal "

[Anonymous Coward]

The key word being illegal. The copyright holders could get an injunction via the legal processes, with all their checks and balances and testimony under oath, and expert judiciary. Instead the proposal is to remove all the of legal process to determine if its 'illegal' and simply skip to the injunction on the word of the copyright lobby.

Re:As long as they accept court orders

[fustakrakich]

However, that also formalizes a cartel of payment systems...

Well, I would hope this is a place where Bitcion can fill in, and other alternatives can emerge.

Arbitrary decisions and ruining people's lives

[kheldan]

While credit card companies and payment companies like PayPal do have the right to decide who they will and will not do business with, a conspiracy between organizations like the MPAA, RIAA, and credit card companies to arbitrarily black-ball someone else's company smacks of anti-trust in my opinion. Without some sort of regulation, companies blackballed by this cabal of corporate giants would have only prohibitively expensive civil litigation to try to reverse the chilling effects it would have on their livelihood. This cadre of corporations could (and just might) use their combined power to destroy competition by branding them 'pirates'.

Oh boy

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"...the right to refrain from executing transactions to pirate sites if copyright holders (MPAA, RIAA, PSR for Music) file a complaint."

Ha ha, no way this will be abused by the "copyright holders". I can't see anything that could go wrong here, no sir.

Except these "copyright holders" have been known to file utterly bogus complaints, claiming copyright over birds singing, public domain works, anything that has a sound in the background that might (or might not) vaguely resemble some sound in something they own (or claim to own).

But don't worry, Citizen, the uber-mega-international corporations have your best interests at heart, never fear! All hail the glorious mega-corporations! Remember, "corporations are people too"!