var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Face Imploder
May 16, 2009 8:16 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Awesome. Just one more reason NOT to pay for porn.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Lincolnsbeard33
May 18, 2009 7:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Murderous Eyes of Eos: if no one payed for porn then we wouldn't have any free porn.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
alexcassidy
May 18, 2009 8:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Lincolnsbeard33: Very true. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those people =P

Reply
\"user-pic\"
socialSTD
May 16, 2009 9:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Murderous Eyes of Eos:

But then how are all those college girls supposed to pay for school?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
May 17, 2009 1:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@socialSTD: Bad news, Virginia: they're not all college girls.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonpup
May 16, 2009 9:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@socialSTD: If I answered that, I'd be disemvoweled.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
warf0x0r
May 17, 2009 12:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonpup: I also wanted to answer that but was forced to rethink it mid sentence.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
I_have_something_to_say
May 16, 2009 8:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Murderous Eyes of Eos:

Agreed - there's usually something out there for free that brings me to my special place. Usually a 15-20 second clip.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
xredgambit
May 18, 2009 1:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I_have_something_to_say: Who needs more than 15-20 seconds?


Wait I need to retract that statement O_o

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
webreacher
May 16, 2009 8:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Excuse me, I'm rolling on the floor laughing right now.

On one hand, we have a consumer issue.

On the other... Ok I cannot continue any more here.

You should just quietly filed a chargeback, without posting it to Consumerist.

Here's a ''rip-off report''
[www.ripoffreport.com]

Reply
12 replies
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
May 18, 2009 3:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@webreacher: Oh no, people watch porn and aren't ashamed of it!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
morganlh85
May 17, 2009 12:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@webreacher: This is exactly why companies like this feel they can take advantage of customers -- they hope they will simply be too embarrassed to do anything about it and get their money back (see Enzyte, etc.). No Consumerist fan should really support that type of prudish double standard.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
May 16, 2009 9:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@webreacher: I hear if you continue with that other hand, it's like a stranger is doing it for you ....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
May 16, 2009 9:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@webreacher: Well we dont' know who OP is, and won't, and meanwhile this could have (although it's alreadhy fixed now) gotten him a resolution

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Liam Kinkaid
May 16, 2009 8:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@webreacher: You should just quietly filed a chargeback, without posting it to Consumerist.

Why? It's the general prudishness prevalent in America that made imlive.com feel secure in presenting their veiled threat \"We reserve our right to keep all records of your activity with the Sexual Stress Relief Hosts on the ImLive.com platform.\" Why should the OP feel held hostage because of this crap? Sexuality is a normal human process. If he feels the need/desire to pay for porn, so what? If he's ripped off, it only helps everyone else by posting it to the Consumerist so everyone can be aware of imlive's habit of threatening customers who are exercising their rights.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
liquidnumb
May 16, 2009 8:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@webreacher: Houses have hot and cold running porn now. It's not really a taboo anymore.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ragman
May 17, 2009 7:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Con Seannery: Mission Accomplished: The other one is called \"necrophilia\". (Don't ask why or how, it'll just make your brain hurt.)

Just think - with all the WiFi out there, it's quite likely you've had internet pron passing through your body at some point.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ghede
May 16, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@webreacher: Good thing you didn't continue, your hand were full!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheObserver
May 16, 2009 8:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@webreacher: Yea this one's a classic. I doubt many readers to Consumerist would admit such an embarrassing issue to the general public. Granted I'm willing to bet over 80% of Consumerist readers (as well as the browsing public in general) browse porn anyway, but still, this one has got to be a new classic here. Well, at least didn't reveal true names!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
asplodzor
May 19, 2009 7:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheObserver: Embarrassing issue to whom? The only people I know that would be embarrassed about porn are my parents.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jackbishop
May 16, 2009 8:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheObserver: such an embarrassing issue.
Remember the Consumerist ethic. Viewing porn isn't half as embarassing as paying for it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OprahBabb
May 18, 2009 2:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jackbishop: Yea....I was about to say something about that too. 1. Who pays for porn these days? 2. Why? 3. Why? (!)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
paulrules
May 16, 2009 8:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Was it really a good idea to email Consumerist about your porn problem? Really?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
kc2idf
May 18, 2009 9:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@paulrules: Are you saying that he should be ashamed? It seems to me that the porn vendor is counting on that.

I can see a business model developing here. Because people are ashamed of porn, some porn vendor starts randomly sucking money from their customers' accounts knowing that only a minority will fight them.

Forget it. Stuff the shame. That's so 19th century. Queen Victoria is long gone, and so is Ronald Reagan.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
veg-o-matic
May 18, 2009 7:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kc2idf:
Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrells.

Because people are ashamed of porn, some porn vendor starts randomly sucking money from their customers' accounts knowing that only a minority will fight them.

...was essentially one of the many business models employed in the film.

And hilarity did ensue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
May 18, 2009 1:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@paulrules:

He has sexual stress. Hence the \"Sexual Stress Relief Hosts\" (GOD that was funny).

:D

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PhishsBrevity
May 16, 2009 8:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@paulrules: Hey, the man is secure in the fact that he buys porn. Who cares? Porn sites can be viscous in this manner and a lot of people consume them, they need to be called out just like any other company.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
drjayphd
May 16, 2009 8:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@paulrules: When the problem is someone else using his account information to pay for their porn, it's absolutely a good idea. :)

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
FuryOfFirestorm
May 16, 2009 8:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Considering the wide variety of free porn on the net, the only reason to pay for porn is that you have a fetish so obscure, you have to pay to have it made especially for you. Hairy elderly Asian she-male amputee dwarf porn, perhaps?

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
dangermike
May 18, 2009 8:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FuryOfFirestorm: You mean you haven't found the free hairy elderly Asian she-male amputee dwarf site ring yet? I thought it was all the rage these days.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
alexcassidy
May 18, 2009 8:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FuryOfFirestorm: Rule 34 of the internet: If it exists, there is porn of it. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Lincolnsbeard33
May 18, 2009 7:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FuryOfFirestorm: you need people to pay for porn. Granted with millions of people on the net you only need a very small fraction of them to pay for it but you still need them to pay.

Without it we would have no porn.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fatcop
May 16, 2009 9:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FuryOfFirestorm: Oh you like that too? I thought it was just me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brian James Schend
May 16, 2009 9:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fatcop: Well, if you want good porn...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bcsus83
May 16, 2009 8:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FuryOfFirestorm:

LOL! My thoughts exactly. I didn't realize anyone actually paid for porn anymore.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mianne
May 17, 2009 2:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bcsus83: A hunch tells me that if no one paid for porn nowadays, there would be no porn to consume outside of the occasional home video that leaked out to the net. I don't believe Larry Flynt and his ilk are going to be lining up for food stamps any time soon.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
strathmeyer
May 16, 2009 8:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I assume all you people who are too embarrassed to talk about their porn viewing habits just feel bad because they would have fallen for this scam?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 16, 2009 8:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I dont see the issue here.An authorized credit card payment was taken, the breach in security was not the companys problem, or fault.You saved CC info, your account then requested 450 Credits, and you yourself, authorized this company to bill you for these credits.

Your chargeback is fraudulent. The method for this should be like any other theft, a report to the police, so investigations can proceed

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
LuvJones
May 16, 2009 8:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So he shouldn't complain because he was defrauded by a porn company/provider?

He's an adult, it's really not that big of a deal what type of company defrauded him. He may be alerting others who use this service what can happen on this site.

I get my porn for free, but if I decide to pay for it I know NOT to use this site.

Isn't that what this site is for, you warn other consumers about bad companies? Isn't that what the OP is doing?

Geez, it's porn no biggie.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
banmojo
May 16, 2009 11:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LuvJones: NOBODY gets their pron for free - we all die a little bit on the inside in order to watch women get paid to take a 12 incher up the coochie. But I agree, he's perfectly fine complaining in this forum, 90% plus of the male readers here probably use pron on a semi regular basis, and a good deal more female readers than many would guess!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
liquidnumb
May 16, 2009 9:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LuvJones: I'm curious what demos are more common to this site. I have a hard time thinking that anyone under thirty would consider this very embarrassing

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
GayNerd
May 16, 2009 8:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sorry, I think ImLive behaved nobly.

They had no way of knowing if this guy's complaint was legit. The charge, so far as they were concerned, was authorized, yet they decided to suck it...I mean...they decided to bend over...what I meant to say was that ImLive tried to make the guy hole...uh...whole as best they could without burning a $450 hole in their pockets.

I'll bet they get phony charge backs every hour of every day from spouses trying to explain legit charges in their credit cards.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
May 18, 2009 1:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GayNerd:

I disagree with you, but your post made me LOL. :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
May 18, 2009 3:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HogwartsAlum: I know most adult sites won't \"flag\" your account if it is access by two or three different IPs each day on the basis the user is accessing the site on different machines (A work laptop and a home desktop for example).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gravitus
May 16, 2009 9:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GayNerd:

They even admitted he hadn't used the account in ages. Unless this person had a porn meltdown and went crazy, I am willing to bet the OP didn't purchase $450 worth of cam viewing time.

Most attacks are automated and the people who get the information don't care what it is, they will figure out a use for it. In this case it seems the hacker wanted to fap to some cam shows...

Furthermore, they have every way of finding out if the OP was the person behind the charges and viewing of porn. IP addresses, etc...

They were relying on the OP being embarrassed about his porn admiration, yet that shit only works on teenagers, people with low self worth, and or hypocrites.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GayNerd
May 16, 2009 11:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gravitus: The OP gave no indication about how long after the charge he noticed it. One day? Three months? Also, I'm certain that the confirmation emails were sent (and ignored) within seconds on the purchases. He had ample time to attend to this matter well before so many credits had been used. Had he talked to ImLive BEFORE all those credits had been used, perhaps his story would have been less fish-like.

Additionally, I find it very, very hard to believe that out of all the weeks, days, hours, minutes and seconds that had passed since the \"fraudulent\" charges were made, he just happened to log-on at the precise, exact moment as the malefactor.

Nope. I don't buy it. Not for a second.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RvLeshrac
May 18, 2009 1:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GayNerd:


250 credits is 4 hours of porn. So if he was at work (or out with friends, or at a movie, or attending a wedding, or simply reading a good book) and then came home and checked his email, immediately contacting ImLive, the hacker would have had PLENTY of time to streamrip for 4 hours.


Claiming that he had \"ample time\" to dispute a mere four hours of credit usage when he said he was speaking to them *as the credits were being used* is disingenuous at best.


The claim that he was logged in as the credits were being used is perfectly reasonable, even two weeks later. Signing up for porn is an easy way for credit card/identity thieves to confirm that the information they obtained is legitimate, precisely because many people aren't willing to call up the credit card company and say \"Uhh... yeah... that porn isn't mine,\" moreso if they'd been purchasing said porn in the past.


He said that he saw the charge two weeks ago and did not provide a timeframe for the other items. Perhaps he began this process two weeks ago and is only now submitting the story?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RvLeshrac
May 18, 2009 1:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RvLeshrac:


There should be something in there about how signing up for porn is a way for them to verify the information and:


\"Perhaps the thief decided to go back and use the purchased credits at a later date?\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gravitus
May 17, 2009 2:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GayNerd:

I tend to think that most people are not liars and wait for them to prove otherwise. But hey, if the guy wants to fap to $1 a minute cam shows and then come here and lie about it for whatever reason, then I would be surprised.

He could have simply done his chargeback and walked away without anyone other than his bank and the cam show queens being any wiser to the whole mess.

/shrugs.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
May 17, 2009 3:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gravitus:

Ah, but he claimed that the credit card company was unlikely to agree that it was fraud. Check the post. Thus, his only way to get his money back (to his mind at the time) was to pressure the company to cough it up.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery: Mission Accomplished
May 16, 2009 10:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gravitus: And who the hell pays $450 for 5 and a half hours of porn?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TeraGram
May 17, 2009 4:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Con Seannery: Mission Accomplished:

At $1 / minute, $450 is 7.5 hours.

From the OP: They provide (for the most part) adult entertainment with a per credit/ per minute fee of about 1$ per credit (bought in increments of 50$.

Just thought I'd point that out. ;)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery: Mission Accomplished
May 17, 2009 7:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TeraGram: My mistake. Duely noted for my next porn purchase.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
May 16, 2009 11:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@runchadrun: @Con Seannery: Mission Accomplished: Why shouldn't the dollar sign go after the number? In America, do we not read from left to right?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GoodBytes
May 17, 2009 6:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle:
Canadian $ signs is after the number. So either he was probably educated in Canada, or Europe with the metric system and applied the U.S currency instead as he live now in the states.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jonnypage
May 17, 2009 8:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GoodBytes: I don't know what kind of bizarro Canada you are from, (probably Quebec) but it's good old $xxx (no pun intended re: the topic :p)where I live...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
May 17, 2009 1:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jonnypage: As a fellow Canuck I second this, we use the same style Americans do with the dollar sign up front, unless the word \"dollars\" is actually written, then it comes after.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Lauren Guitar
May 17, 2009 4:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81:

Not if you're French, the $ sign goes after the number. I learned that the hard way. I know I just put the $ sign after the number out of habit now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery: Mission Accomplished
May 17, 2009 12:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: Because it goes before the number. That's how it goes. Why do we put adjectives before nouns? Why do we capitalize names of days? That's just the way it is.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
May 17, 2009 12:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Con Seannery: Mission Accomplished: And not everything we do makes sense. Some things should change.

\"That's just the way it is\" is a lazy cop-out. I disagree with the status quo.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery: Mission Accomplished
May 17, 2009 7:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: I'll be sure to lodge your complaint with the English Language Regulatory Body. Until then, writing 450$ makes you look like a dumbass.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xkeeper
May 18, 2009 10:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Con Seannery: Mission Accomplished:

Actually, a few other monetary units put the symbol after the value... not to mention, it's read that way as well ($450 = 450 dollars).


Personally it works either way for me. Before the value gives an effect much like Spanish's inverted punctuation marks, letting you know what it is before you reach the end; the other way is how it's pronounced.


No need to be a hardass about it, though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ichiro51
May 17, 2009 4:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: Where was your push for change when you wrote the following?!?

\"One time I received an email from Wells Fargo, with a weird URL (apparently for tracking purposes), offering me $5 to sign into my account (Who does that? $5 because you \"missed me\"?). It used my real name, $5 was too low to raise any Nigerian 419 flags, so I blithely complied like a sucka.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
What The Geek
May 16, 2009 9:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GayNerd: Assuming the OP is telling the truth (I see no reason he'd lie) then ImLive's server logs would indicate that the same account was accessed from two different computers, at two different IP addresses at roughly the same time. So, they DO have a way to verify the OP's claim - they just like money too damned much to do the customer friendly thing on their own.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GayNerd
May 16, 2009 10:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@What The Geek: Oh, you cannot think of ANY reason that the OP would lie? None at all? Not a single reason he would lie to any other person on earth about a $450.00 porn bill on his CC statement?

How about this: He got caught by his significant other.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
What The Geek
May 16, 2009 11:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GayNerd: Alright, riddle me this: if he got caught by his significant other, why on earth would he go to the consumerist as part of the cover up? Seems like a lot of trouble to go to in order to cover up the porn habit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
May 17, 2009 3:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@What The Geek:

You just answered your own question. Wouldn't his SO believe him now?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GayNerd
May 16, 2009 11:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@What The Geek: Dude, the guy pays a buck-a-minute to watch...well, I don't know what, precisely, he watches.

But this is not a rational man, and trying to divine his reasoning is like asking an armadillo if it prefers the old Kirk or the new Kirk. You may get a response, but damned if it makes any sense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bibliophibian
May 17, 2009 12:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GayNerd: WTF? Watching porn makes one \"irrational\"? Or even paying to watch porn??

I can't stretch my brain around the first, so I'll assume you mean the second, but that's still a ridiculous thing to say. It's been my experience (although admittedly not lately) that the pay-sites have (a) better material, (b) less virus/malware/spyware/crap, and (c) less of a tendency to sell your email address to God and everyone (although \"happens less\" does not mean \"never happens\"). If he prefers to pay for those features - or whatever other \"perks\" that site may had over the various free sites, in his estimation - it's hardly \"irrational.\" And paying per-minute is a much more \"rational\" than paying a monthly membership fee, IMO, especially for someone who is not a regular viewer. Last but not least, he apparently hadn't even been using the account for two years (or so), so even if he HAD been doing something that was \"irrational\" by paying for porn, it was in the rather distant past, and should hardly affect any assessment of his rationality NOW.

As for all the rest of your hole-poking (...heh) in the OP's report, all I can say is you're REALLY suspicious of someone you don't know... usually that level of suspicion only comes into play when the suspector has a personal interest in the situation. (And now I have to wonder why *I've* taken such an interest in *your* skepticism... hmm)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GayNerd
May 17, 2009 1:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bibliophibian: By irrational I mean \"Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment.\" Sorry, but paying a buck-a-minute in order to reach ejaculation is unreasonable and lacking in sound judgment.

And your reasoning for preferring a pay site to a free site is prima facia preposterous: Free porn only requires a throw-away email address. Yahoo, hotmail, gmail, whatever. And absolutely no disclosure or any personal or financial information of any kind whatsoever. Pay site? Not only your real CC number, but your real name and real address. Oh yea, much safer.

Xtube sells my email address? Good, let them. I use it exclusively for such registrations and every single vowel and consonant I typed in the registration form was a lie.

My suspicions are fully elucidated above and hold much, much, way way way WAY much more water than your penny-ante, \"Psychology Today\" attempt to divine either the OP's honesty or my pecuniary interest.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ein2015
May 17, 2009 12:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GayNerd: This is why we have chargebacks instead of trying to reason with ImLive and its minions like you, GayNerd.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
May 16, 2009 8:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Not to blame the OP here, but what is more likely? That a hacker targeted this guy, managed to crack his username and password and then charged up an amount of money just to watch porn?

Or that the OP's son/best friend/ex-roommate that knew his username/pw did it?

I'm not saying it isn't true... just that I have a hard time believing it. Generally speaking, your hacker rings are after bank account information, not some grainy pseudo-porn.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Aaron Strader
May 16, 2009 9:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy:

That isn't necessarily true. There's more stolen user/password for porn sites publicly posted online than there are bank accounts. Very few people are willing to report that their accounts have been compromised though because of the whole shame attached to porn. If you don't believe me, go peruse 4chan for a few hours and you'll see the vast amount of resources that go into doing brute force hacks onto porn sites to get at their pics and videos just for the jollies of a few thousand teenagers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
May 17, 2009 12:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Aaron Strader: Well, I'm definitely not saying its impossible, it very well IS possible. But when faced with two alternatives: 1) Spend a significant amount of time hacking usernames and passwords for an online pornography site, and then commit more crimes by fraudulently using their credit cards to make a large purchase (but strangely, only enough to watch for 45 minutes), or 2)type in www.youporn.com and watch porn for as long as you like, I have a hard time believing that many people would be willing to do 1.

Again, it just seems more likely that brother/son/friend/roommate did it, and you can call it fraud all you like, but its really not the same. If my son were to log onto a porn site, take out my credit card, and spend $200 watching a stripper, I wouldn't be on here lambasting the company for not knowing it was my son and not me. I'd pay my son's bill and ground his ass for a year. Occam's Razor.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
May 18, 2009 3:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: \" Spend a significant amount of time hacking usernames and passwords for an online pornography site, and then commit more crimes by fraudulently using their credit cards to make a large purchase (\"


You are so naive sometimes. You honesty don't think people will hack porn sites? REALLY? And then use credit cards that aren't theirs? Wooooooow.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RvLeshrac
May 18, 2009 1:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy:


When did anyome imply that criminals were rational, logical creatures?


Way back before history began, I did some of this. I got caught precisely because a) it was a stupid thing to do and b) I used the cards in a stupid way.


The same way every criminal gets caught.


Fortunately, I was a juvenile and the company accepted a return of the merchandise and a sincere apology. My parents, however, were not so forgiving.


The whippings I got might have even been included in the deal with the business. They certainly made me think twice about doing anything like it in the future.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gravitus
May 16, 2009 9:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy:

Unless the hacker is smart enough to steal usernames and passwords to porn sites and doesn't mess with other sources. That describes more than a few hackers...

There was a guy that went around hacking e-sports websites a few years back that simply placed a picture of a eurotrash guy flipping you off into the page and deleted any databases attached to the website.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Liam Kinkaid
May 16, 2009 9:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: What's your point? Even if his son/best friend/ex-roommate did it, it's still fraud. Everything the OP stated is that he did not authorize the charges.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
What The Geek
May 16, 2009 9:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: To some people, $450 worth of porn is more valuable than the money itself. It could have been a relatively simple attack on a server that just happened to have the OP's account on it. It most likely wasn't a targeted attack, the OP was most likely just unlucky.

Also, it doesn't really make a difference if it was a hacker or a shady acquaintance - a fraudulent charge is a fraudulent charge, plane and simple.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ohenry
May 16, 2009 9:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@What The Geek: I agree with you to an extent; fraud is fraud. But at the same time, there are certain security measures that every consumer should be able to follow. Keeping your usernames/passwords secret and at least somewhat diverse is one of them. Sure, fraud is fraud, but should imlive REALLY be held accountable because someone left his password saved on the computer (which seems to be more likely the case here)? I guess it's a matter of which way you lean, but I'd wager probably not.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 16, 2009 8:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The email they sent was a little bit on the threatening side... but I can't say it's that unreasonable either. People should be held accountable for keeping their own information secure. It's not like they lost his credit card number and refused to take responsibility, that would really be ridiculous. And they did send emails to his own email address confirming the charges. What more should they have done?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
May 16, 2009 8:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I say cut the guy some slack. He wanted to watch \"live\" nude ladies in real time. Most pre-recorded free porn online is not live. Why make fun of the guy for wanting some realism instead of canned porn? It's his money.

Tasteless? Perhaps. But it's a free country, and he was paying for a legal service. I just don't see what the big deal is.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
veg-o-matic
May 16, 2009 9:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@paulrules: Even if you're morally opposed to this \"adult material\" in every way possible, the fact is that the material on this site is ostensibly legal, so it's a product like any other.. thus, E. is a consumer like any other.

These same questions invariably surface on posts about disgruntled customers of [insert luxury item or service], and invariably, the answer is the same: No matter how you feel about the necessity, appropriateness or morality of the purchase/item/service, at the most basic it still involves a (defrauded) customer-business transaction.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery: Mission Accomplished
May 16, 2009 9:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@veg-o-matic: Service, actually. Unless he's recording and saving the webcam sessions, it's a service, not a product. Your point still stands, I just thought I'd point that out.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
veg-o-matic
May 18, 2009 7:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Con Seannery: Mission Accomplished: Point taken, though some of us in media studies call all of it a \"product\" anyway..

although, if it is actually live and interactive as claimed, one could argue that it's more of a \"service\".. hmmm.. interesting. I'll have to discuss this with my colleagues. Fascinating!

ahh, semantics.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
exkon
May 16, 2009 9:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

To each their own....

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Alys Brangwin is one smartass pawn
May 16, 2009 9:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@webreacher: The Conusmerist can
And it does it with a smile
And never judges you!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
aerick79
May 16, 2009 9:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sorry OP, But thats not fraud. It should be a dispute(chargeback).

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
May 17, 2009 12:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aerick79: It may not be fraud on the part of the provider, but if he didn't authorize the charges, then it's fraud on the part of someone.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
runchadrun
May 16, 2009 9:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Am I the only one who can barely get past that the OP doesn't know where the dollar sign goes?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery: Mission Accomplished
May 16, 2009 10:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@runchadrun: I see that error more and more, shameful considering how often it comes from lifelong Americans...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Aaron Strader
May 16, 2009 9:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@runchadrun:

Most currencies put their mark after the amount.

He could've been canadian or australian too. US isn't the only one that uses Dollars.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shepd
May 16, 2009 9:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@runchadrun:

Perhaps he's French? No, really, I'm being serious here.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
dave_coder
May 16, 2009 9:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I love how this guy says it's an \"obvious\" sign of a brute force hack. Why kind of hacker would want to waste time doing this?

I think he himself somehow exposed himself to a keylogger or spyware and it stole his key. Or he lets other use his computer.

Not blaming the OP just suggesting that his side is not the only one and that he should excercise proper surfing habits. :)

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
May 18, 2009 3:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dave_coder: \"Why kind of hacker would want to waste time doing this?\"


LMAO, you have got to be kidding me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
harlock_JDS
May 18, 2009 11:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

href=\"#c12872930\">dave_coder:

more likely he had a easy to figure out password and the user name is something stupid like his email address.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ben Miner
May 16, 2009 10:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dave_coder: I found this claim dubious as well. Anybody who has the know-how to brute force a login would also know where to get all the porn they wanted for free.

Wouldn't his login be disabled after thousands of attempts? Or do porn sites not do this.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Aaron Strader
May 16, 2009 10:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Aaron Strader:

Dunno if it goes without saying, but that last link is like 110% NSFW.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CumaeanSibyl
May 17, 2009 12:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ben Miner: True, but a) it's a show of skill and b) some people enjoy stealing for the lulz.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery: Mission Accomplished
May 16, 2009 10:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, that company was sure being a dick here. I mean, really, at least don't threaten the guy and make him think his reputation is going to be screwed. Seriously, why don't they just bend him over here while they're at it with this customer service rape on his account and finances.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
dave_coder
May 17, 2009 10:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Con Seannery: Mission Accomplished: That's funny. Whenever a company (such as the one in this article) is posted to the Consumerist THEIR reputation is tarnished. Along with the people running it.

If you're gonna do something don't be ashamed of it.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 16, 2009 10:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Chargebacks are serious business in the Internet porn industry. VISA consider us low hanging fruit and thusly, penalizes \"adult\" transactions much more harshly than they do other types of Internet transactions. Our chargeback ceiling is 1%. Adult businesses wishing to accept VISA through third-party processors (like CCBill) must pay an initial $750 fee plus $350 annually. If an adult site exceeds the 1% chargeback ceiling, they are subject to the freezing of assets as well as enormous penalty fees that can reach 5 figures.What's worse is that VISA is the only credit card company that will process for the adult Internet.

I'm not saying the account holder @ IMLive doesn't have a legitimate case. I'm just explaining that the chargeback situation is no laughing matter for adult websites.

Perhaps someday, Consumerist could investigate the unfair practices waged on the adult Internet by VISA.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
zacwax
May 16, 2009 10:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

dude that's some expensive porn

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HalOfBorg
May 16, 2009 10:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

OK - on one hand we have a guy who's account got accessed by someone.

On the other hand.... oh wait, the other hand is 'busy' right now.

:)

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cliff_Donner
May 17, 2009 4:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HalOfBorg: Are you suggesting this is just another case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing??

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ragman
May 17, 2009 7:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cliff_Donner: By no means - one hand has to navigate websites for the other.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
meltingcube
May 16, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Coming from a business view, I understand why they don't want a chargeback. Chargebacks first of all cost the company money both in the amount that they lose from the return of the money, as well as the fee their merchant charges (usually $20-$30) per chargeback, and it goes against them with their merchant. I do see that they had offered to refund the money, and on the business side its always cheaper and less of a hassle to just refund, then take a hit with a chargeback.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
calchip
May 17, 2009 12:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@meltingcube: The porn industry in particular has onerous restrictions as far as chargebacks. If their chargeback rates go over 1% of their volume, they can lose their merchant account entirely. That's why they are so aggressive to try and prevent them (in addition to the fees they pay and the loss of funds.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Stephanie Haller
May 16, 2009 11:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@meltingcube:

They weren't offering to refund him the $450 - they were offering to give him back the 250 credits used.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
GayNerd
May 16, 2009 11:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hasn't this guy ever heard of Xtube?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
May 18, 2009 1:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GayNerd:

He can watch videos on Xtube without even registering. So no need to even fake an email.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
jfischer
May 16, 2009 11:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, I had no idea that people were so afraid of swine flu that they would stay home and attend their prom over the internet, and that there were companies that would charge by the minute....

Oh, PORN.
As in \"porno\".
And sold in $50 chunks at a buck a minute.
That's really sad.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jrizos
May 16, 2009 11:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There's porn...on the internet?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Shenanigans Was Taken
May 17, 2009 2:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jrizos: ...as we all know, \"The Internet Is for Porn.\" Thanks Avenue Q!

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
calchip
May 17, 2009 12:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Porn sites run into this problem all the time, and while there are plenty of people claiming they \"accidentally\" joined (really!) or their nonexistent child joined using their credit card number, cases such as this are a lot more common than you might think.

If Imlive actually cared about customer service, it would be really easy for them to investigate and determine with a reasonable degree of certainty whether or not there was fraud. Pretty much all porn sites maintain IP access logs to their sites and content for this very purpose. Many keep specific information about what files or content was viewed. All they have to do is look at the IP addresses that the customer uses on a regular basis, and then at the IP addresses used to buy and watch the additional credits.

In this case, assuming the OP is telling the truth (and I'm inclined to believe he is), ImLive could have immediately checked and determined the purchase authorization came from a different part of the country or different ISP than the OP's normal access, and it would be pretty obvious there was fraud.

There are plenty of reputable porn companies that provide great service and have reasonable policies, but there are also a bunch that do shady stuff like signing you up to 3 sites when you join one, or offering \"free\" access that \"automatically upgrades\" you the first time you click on a video, or other shady stuff.

In this case, I think the reason they didn't offer the OP a refund is they didn't want to mess with it and didn't want to lose the money. And it's this sort of thing that contributes to the porn industry having such a crappy reputation.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
nacoran
May 17, 2009 1:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Porn sites count on people not going public with scams like this for fear of ridicule. I for one salute the victim for going public. Seriously though, don't give your credit card number to any business you might be embarrassed to admit you did business with.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
May 17, 2009 3:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nacoran: Kind of like the \"Enzyte\" scam of continually re-billing monthly credit card charges and sending refills to the customer's house. They told the customers if it wasn't working and they wanted a refund, they'd need a notarized letter from their doctor stating the customer had a small penis which did not increase in size after taking the Enzyte pills. Who is going to ask their doctor and a notary public to sign and witness a document to verify their small penis?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mythago
May 17, 2009 1:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't get the \"caught by Mrs. OP\" argument the usual crowd is trying to make. He's been a member (sorry) since 2006 and they have his credit card number - if he were going to lie to the Mrs., why not just say that the credit card number got stolen, period? \"Honey, please don't be mad, I've only logged onto that porn site a few times in the last three years!\" Oh, yeah, that'll smooth things over.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Meathamper
May 17, 2009 4:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Who is this person?

$50 to anyone who finds the identity of \"E\".

Reply
1 replies
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ShadowFalls
May 17, 2009 7:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GayNerd:

As pointed out, they do have access to logs with the times and IP addresses from the logins. If they are unwilling to do any verification, what keeps an employee from being able to abuse accounts? I am sure they would come more adept when they know how the system works.

In my opinion, I believe it is ImLive.com's responsibility to prove his fault. They would have an IP address authentication when the purchase was made.

Sure there are sneaky ways like proxies, which would make the process more complicated. But, it would not be ImLive.com's fault if the OP's computer was compromised and used for these means (logs would show his ip address was used). Then it would be a strictly fraud case.

People do lie, sure. But what are the chances of him lying while confessing to the world about his personal porn-related materials? It isn't too suggestive a person would do something like that and then go about lying.

As for judging a person because of their spending habits. I have seen many respectable people waste hordes of money on something I see as a complete waste, the amount involved with the OP doesn't even remotely come close to 1% of others I have seen. Though these weren't porn-related materials, the principle is the same.

Some people spend lots of money on video games. Certain people would see that as a waste, but those people themselves might just spend lots of money on books, which others might see as a waste of money. What people think is a waste is dependent on their own personal preferences.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
edrebber
May 17, 2009 12:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

More than likely an Iamlive.com employee placed the charges on E's account. E wasn't using the site so they decicded to generate revenue.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
door2summer
May 17, 2009 4:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

For all the commentors making fun of the guy for actually paying for porn-
First, someone has to pay for it or the industry will stop making it.
Second, if you are going to pay for porn, use a refillable debit card. It ads a few dollars to your over all cost, but it will save you lots of headaches like this. Especially if you are dealing with ccbill.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
snclfe
May 17, 2009 7:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Sexual Stress Relief Hosts\"

That's my favorite part of this story.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PLATTWORX
May 17, 2009 10:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

CAN WE SET ASIDE that this story is about an adult web site?


What matters it that the OP had an unauthozied charge made by a web site to his credit card and when he contacted them they refused to credit him and threatened him if he filed a dispute. Both are fraud and borderline illegal.


He did the right thing to file a dispute with his credit card and to tell this site because (let's face it) there are others here who have or will use ImLive.com and this will warn them.


Enough said.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
May 18, 2009 1:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PLATTWORX:

Well put. The threat part was the worst.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 18, 2009 12:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is \"E\" the OP. Most of you have hit the nail on the head of what this is really about. I should address a few points i have read here though. I am 29 years old and my girlfriend knows all about this situation. She know that shockingly i occasionally enjoy porn. I am accutely aware of the amount of free porn on the internet and havent really actively used their site in years. Their attitude in this matter was infuriating. I understood the predicament they were in and could even see why they were reluctant to simply reimburse me at my word. But as some people ahve mentioned here. There should have been signifigent enough evidence to at least investigate my claim via checking dual logins, ip addresses, and the fact that after i changed my u/p on their site there were numerous failed attempts to access through my old u/p. I have no idea how my u/p was acquired as i have never given it out and i thought it was obscure enough. But on a hunch i googled my u/p combo and found it posted on a forum where password trading occurs. The lesson was learned and fortuneately thanks to my bank i was able to get a chargeback. The primary lesson was to never save credit card info on a site.. especially one where there is no address info as to where the purchases are sent.

Finally I should address the dollar format. I'm an idiot sometimes. I wrote the email to consumerist in haste and anger. I think I prefer to write how i speak. When you speak you say \"X Dollars\" so thats how i wrote it \"X$\" its wrong and i am sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities with my poor grammer.

Any questions?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Todd Miller
May 18, 2009 1:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Of course this guy wouldn't admit to using a lame password and just wants to whine about losing money due to his stupidity.

Hint people........Ensure your passwords are airtight.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
cinnarose
May 18, 2009 8:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The one time I actually paid for online porn (iFriends, if I recall correctly), the credit card company called to ask if the charge was actually mine or was it fraud. I cheerfully replied that yes indeed I did make the charge. I think I disappointed the person on the other end of the phone.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
July 24, 2009 10:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'd like to point out a few things from the cam model's perspective...

A) You all assume by saying \"We reserve our right to keep all records of your activity with the Sexual Stress Relief Hosts on the ImLive.com platform\" means that the company is THREATENING the OP and this is not true. Imlive does not care to call your boss or your family saying \"omg did you hear so and so watches porn?\" THEY RESERVE THIS RIGHT FOR THE SAFETY OF CAMHOSTS. When you issue a chargeback, the model suffers; plain and simple. Imlive has a blacklist which puts models on notice if a customer has ever issued a chargeback. They have the RIGHT to keep this on file and let the models know this customer is a possible liability.

B) I and anyone with half a brain knows (as others have pointed out) that brute force hacking is a long and tedious process. To pay a hacker to brute force an account would cost you way more than the amount disputed if you could even find one with the horrid ethics necessary to do so for a cause as infantile as hacking a porn site. It is possible that the OP was attacked by some teenager using a remote keylogger but was more likely HIS OWN FAULT FOR A LACK OF COMPUTER SECURITY AND KNOWLEDGE.

C) Camhosts only get, yes that's right 30% of what you spend. They work very hard often for what totals to less than minimum wage per hour spent in front of hot lights and in the uncomfortable lingerie you love so much. This percentage is reduced further if the model has an agent i.e. does not own her own equipment. Customers are often very rude and insulting and one must have THICK SKIN to do this, which is sometimes necessary in our current economy. IF YOU CANT AFFORD TO WATCH, DON'T SIGN UP. It wastes the models time and leaves her feeling used and cheated as she is not told what her chargebacks are until the end of a pay period. A 100 dollar chargeback is the difference between being able to pay ones rent or eat that month or not! Chargebacks are taken from the models, the site does NOT eat them. If your wallet were stolen by some guy at a stripclub, would you expect the girl giving you a lapdance to reimburse you? NO. Keep better track of your wallet!!

IMO this was the fault of the OP. If you are lucky enough to be able to afford LUXURIES like watching live camshows, Keep your antivirus up to date, use a firewall, use common sense and for god's sake tip the girl!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MaryAlice420
September 16, 2009 4:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I work as a cam model on ImLive and would just like to say that the reason they treat it as fraud is because those who work for the site get their earnings revoked everytime someone decides not to pay. The girls on the site do not know and have no way of knowing that the person on the other end is using a stolen card...all we know is that we get money taken away for a show that we successfully gave someone. Essentially the performers feel as though they have just been robbed.

Reply
");