View Full Version : looks like the FTC is going to hold
JoesHO
01-11-2005, 04:35 PM
for all the affiliates actions now too.... remind me again why it was good to vote for Bush LOL I hat to say I told you so...but
I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!! :salute:
TheEnforcer
01-11-2005, 04:47 PM
I'm not one to be a big Bush defender but if i'm not mistaken the recent case was for the companies own mailing operations, no?
Peaches
01-11-2005, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Jan 11 2005, 05:48 PM
I'm not one to be a big Bush defender but if i'm not mistaken the recent case was for the companies own mailing operations, no?
That's the way I read it too.
Not to mention, based on the paperwork they WEREN'T complying with the CAN SPAM act. That's just asking for trouble.
I only see this as a good thing.
Affiliate programs should be held liable for the actions of their webmaster base.
No more will affiliates be able to spam, scam, cheat and steal from others if programs start being held accountable for their actions.
Dravyk
01-11-2005, 05:06 PM
And the day when the affiliate is a thing of the past draws one giant step closer.
LeeNoga
01-11-2005, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Lee@Jan 11 2005, 02:05 PM
I only see this as a good thing.
Affiliate programs should be held liable for the actions of their webmaster base.
No more will affiliates be able to spam, scam, cheat and steal from others if programs start being held accountable for their actions.
WHAT? Your nuts.
I cannot control what my affiliates do, yet your saying the FTC should shut me down because of a renegade webmaster?
If your thinking gets any more narrow, I might thread your head thru a needle and sew on a button.
Originally posted by LeeNoga@Jan 11 2005, 02:13 PM
I cannot control what my affiliates do
Then you shouldnt be running an affiliate program $0.02
TheEnforcer
01-11-2005, 05:22 PM
I see where you are coming from Lee Noga, but it is an interesting debate with a lot of different issues to look at. Lee is taking a too narrow view but there is some validity to the accountability aspect too. It's not as if you can automatically say "I didn't know about that" and expect to easily have it fly. Also, foreign webmasters sending to US based comapnaies is an interesting topic as well. Lots of issues to look at here.
Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Jan 11 2005, 02:23 PM
I see where you are coming from Lee Noga, but it is an interesting debate with a lot of different issues to look at. Lee is taking a too narrow view but there is some validity to the accountability aspect too. It's not as if you can automatically say "I didn't know about that" and expect to easily have it fly. Also, foreign webmasters sending to US based comapnaies is an interesting topic as well. Lots of issues to look at here.
Well my point was more along the lines of accountability at the affiliate program owners level.
With Lee saying she cant control her affiliates it shows a lack of understanding on her part, of course she can control what her affiliates do, thats why we have T.O.S rules which now, programs will hopefully start to follow.
By policing their affiliates, from where the traffic comes from to how the sites in a program are promoted is going to get rid of those companies who are in this to make a quick buck. It is also going to mean that support reps NEED to have a 'hands on' understanding of what it means to be a 'webmaster' which in turn, is going to mean hat the support their offer their affiliates if going to benefit greatly.
Many programs already police where affiliates send their traffic from, anything that could even be construed as 'illegal' by these programs and the webmasters account gets terminated.. as per the programs T.O.S.
As i said originally, long term, this is going to have a good effect on affiliate programs as those webmasters who are out to cheat, scam and defraud are going to run out of options pretty quickly.
rhymer11
01-11-2005, 05:33 PM
aiding and abetting is a catch all used to cast a wide net. As a lawyer explained it to me, if you are even selling pencils to a criminal organization, they will be looking at you as a cog in a money laundering machine. If they are serious, a lot of affiliates who were pitching anything from casinos to porn should have a good look at their associations.
LeeNoga
01-11-2005, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Lee@Jan 11 2005, 02:28 PM
With Lee saying she cant control her affiliates it shows a lack of understanding on her part, of course she can control what her affiliates do, thats why we have T.O.S rules which now, programs will hopefully start to follow.
*yawn*, gimme a break.
This is not even about how I run the affiliate program.
You act like if the words are in the TOS, thats a safeguard that the webmaster 100% will never spam your program.
When Mom and Dad said never to skip school, I did. When the Navy said do not smoke pot, I did...
No webmaster is going to be the perfect angel because we told them they had to be.
Thats my point.
No more, no less.
LeeNoga is using her brain here. Lee, you're not.
Making programs liable for their affiliates actions stops the system dead in its tracks.
No more IPSPs that will cut checks for programs will exist either. The risk of being held liable is too much.
No more programs that have affiliates in the states.
Personally, I'd run naked thru the streets dancing for joy if that day came, but I don't really see it going that route.
Originally posted by LeeNoga@Jan 11 2005, 03:53 PM
No webmaster is going to be the perfect angel because we told them they had to be.
That is exactly my point.
It is no longer about just TELLING them to be but actively going above and beyond the current industry 'norm' to seek them out and terminate them from any program that you operate.
The FTC is in essence, telling affiliate programs they now need to police the actions of their affiliate webmasters and THAT, is a good thing no matter how you look at it, isnt it?
Peaches
01-11-2005, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Lee+Jan 11 2005, 08:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ Jan 11 2005, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-LeeNoga@Jan 11 2005, 03:53 PM
No webmaster is going to be the perfect angel because we told them they had to be.
That is exactly my point.
It is no longer about just TELLING them to be but actively going above and beyond the current industry 'norm' to seek them out and terminate them from any program that you operate.
The FTC is in essence, telling affiliate programs they now need to police the actions of their affiliate webmasters and THAT, is a good thing no matter how you look at it, isnt it? [/b][/quote]
Lee, we terminate anyone who breaks our TOS. But they have to BREAK them first AND we have to know about it.
So...what happens if DannyWebmaster breaks the rules for a day and he gets found out by the feds before we find out and term him and we're responsible? Like KK said, when that happens, you will see affiliate programs go bye bye.
Originally posted by *KK*@Jan 11 2005, 04:07 PM
LeeNoga is using her brain here. Lee, you're not.
Making programs liable for their affiliates actions stops the system dead in its tracks.
No more IPSPs that will cut checks for programs will exist either. The risk of being held liable is too much.
No more programs that have affiliates in the states.
Personally, I'd run naked thru the streets dancing for joy if that day came, but I don't really see it going that route.
Kimmy,
IPSPs already police their clients dont they? If anything this is going to make it somewhat easier (long term) for them as they will also now KNOW that an affiliate program who is serious about their business WILL be keeping a watchfull eye on their affiliate base.
Any IPSP im sure would rather work with a handful of programs that are 'tried and trusted' in making sure their affiliates are kept in check than hundreds of them that dont.
Originally posted by Peaches@Jan 11 2005, 04:13 PM
So...what happens if DannyWebmaster breaks the rules for a day and he gets found out by the feds before we find out and term him and we're responsible? Like KK said, when that happens, you will see affiliate programs go bye bye.
Im sure it wont be as cut and dry as that with the FTC and im pretty sure at some point they will use their judgement to make calls to.
At least by being able to show due diligence on a program owners part in order to weed out those cheats it will make it slightly easier for program owners should the FTC come down on them.
Afterall if only 1 out of 100 affiliates are causing an issue.. you know what to do as a program owner.
Also on the subject of program T.O.S. The mainstream world uses T.O.S much more effectively than in adult, for example, the CJ T.O.S is almost 5 or 6 pages long compare that to many of the programs in adult.. 1 page for their T.O.S.
JoesHO
01-11-2005, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by *KK*@Jan 11 2005, 04:07 PM
LeeNoga is using her brain here. Lee, you're not.
Making programs liable for their affiliates actions stops the system dead in its tracks.
No more IPSPs that will cut checks for programs will exist either. The risk of being held liable is too much.
No more programs that have affiliates in the states.
Personally, I'd run naked thru the streets dancing for joy if that day came, but I don't really see it going that route.
I got my camera ready.... give me a heads up will ya
Originally posted by Lee@Jan 11 2005, 04:13 PM
Kimmy,
IPSPs already police their clients dont they? If anything this is going to make it somewhat easier (long term) for them as they will also now KNOW that an affiliate program who is serious about their business WILL be keeping a watchfull eye on their affiliate base.
Any IPSP im sure would rather work with a handful of programs that are 'tried and trusted' in making sure their affiliates are kept in check than hundreds of them that dont.
Hahaha, you live in a dream world Lee. Wake up, especially if you are an affiliate or you have anything to do with affiliates.
If you really in your wildest fantasy think that the owners of Paycom, CCBill, etc would ever consider having criminal indictments from the FTC pressed upon them as part of the normal course of doing business that they don't and can't control, then you must have thought you were getting a wisdom tooth pulled instead of a full frontal lobotomy.
There is risk managment, there is best practices, there is good business sense.
And there's not a single program out there that could by any stretch of the imagination make any of those three options a reason for staying in the affiliate business if something like this is even remotely in the cards.
You don't police affiliates, you hire employees when the consequences are such.
Originally posted by *KK*@Jan 11 2005, 05:16 PM
You don't police affiliates, you hire employees when the consequences are such.
Which is exactly the point i am making, that HAS to change if affiliate programs want to stay in business as they are doing now.
They need to start policing their affiliates instead of hiring new people when the proverbial hits the fan.
Euro Lee.. forget the argument... beat these one liner :pearl: s before going any further ;-)
If your thinking gets any more narrow, I might thread your head thru a needle and sew on a button.
you must have thought you were getting a wisdom tooth pulled instead of a full frontal lobotomy.
ROFLMAO... More.. More... More...
Opti,
I dont need to beat them.. im more than capable of putting my views across without the need for insults ;)
Originally posted by LeeNoga+Jan 11 2005, 05:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LeeNoga @ Jan 11 2005, 05:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jan 11 2005, 02:05 PM
I only see this as a good thing.
Affiliate programs should be held liable for the actions of their webmaster base.
No more will affiliates be able to spam, scam, cheat and steal from others if programs start being held accountable for their actions.
WHAT? Your nuts.
I cannot control what my affiliates do, yet your saying the FTC should shut me down because of a renegade webmaster?
If your thinking gets any more narrow, I might thread your head thru a needle and sew on a button. [/b][/quote]
Lee ... this is oprano, you don't have to cover up what you really mean ....
the FTC is taking away your ability to say 'but i didn't know, it was an affiliate' and as a result, you are going to be held responsible for the illegal methods your advertisers use TO MAKE YOU MONEY.
What do you want, profits with no responsibilities? it doesn't work that way ... its called business ... we all knew this was the year of legitimizing the biz - keep up, or .... don't!
When an affiliate starts spamming a program, you should know within hours - a day at the most. if you don't, why are you bothering to spend $250k on a booth? you should be saving that money to put some procedures in place or to build a better stats system or hire more staff to oversee the affiliates activities.
if you check your stats every day, look over every new account or account with a traffic spike, then no affiliates actions should get past you. If you can't handle checking every single affiliate and what they are doing to advertise your product, you shouldn't have so many affiliates. period.
I've run programs with every type of webmaster/traffic/combination you could imagine - i've run small affiliate programs with a few hundred webmasters, and a big affiliate program with 14 000 webmasters. Its never impossible to keep your eye on all of your affiliates, and if someone messes up, it takes 2 minutes in a good stats system to cancel their account and redirect their traffic. Funnily enough, they stop doing bad shit if they aren't going to be paid ... its not rocket science.
yes ... this new rule is going to mean its not worth it for many affiliate programs to stay in business.
WOO HOO!!!!!!
Think of all that traffic with nowhere to be sent?!?!?
:bjump:
I keep making this same point but I'll say it again ... how many business models (apart from MLM) in the real world work with 1000's of resellers? If you want to sell widgets from any company with any credibility, you have to pass a lot of criteria before you are 'accepted' by them.
This biz is going that way ... and thank fuck its happening FINALLY.
Nickatilynx
01-11-2005, 10:12 PM
:pearl: The FTC is taking away your ability to say 'but i didn't know, it was an affiliate' and as a result, you are going to be held responsible for the illegal methods your advertisers use TO MAKE YOU MONEY.
:pearl:
So how much are all you affiliate programs based in the USA gonna pay me NOT to spam your programs?
;-)))
Originally posted by cj@Jan 11 2005, 07:09 PM
What do you want, profits with no responsibilities? it doesn't work that way ... its called business ... we all knew this was the year of legitimizing the biz - keep up, or .... don't!
Ah thats obviously where the issues with my initial post lay..
I assumed everyone replying to this thread was already running a legitamate business.. I guess some of them arent ;)
Nickatilynx
01-11-2005, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by cj@Jan 11 2005, 07:09 PM
Lee ... this is oprano, you don't have to cover up what you really mean ....
the FTC is taking away your ability to say 'but i didn't know, it was an affiliate' and as a result, you are going to be held responsible for the illegal methods your advertisers use TO MAKE YOU MONEY.
What do you want, profits with no responsibilities? it doesn't work that way ... its called business ... we all knew this was the year of legitimizing the biz - keep up, or .... don't!
Sorry it was so spot on I had to :pearl: it again :)
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Jan 11 2005, 07:13 PM
So how much are all you affiliate programs based in the USA gonna pay me NOT to spam your programs?
;-)))
Your pikey logic doesn't have a damn place in this discussion pal, haven't you figured that out yet?
Originally posted by *KK*+Jan 11 2005, 07:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (*KK* @ Jan 11 2005, 07:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@Jan 11 2005, 07:13 PM
So how much are all you affiliate programs based in the USA gonna pay me NOT to spam your programs?
;-)))
Your pikey logic doesn't have a damn place in this discussion pal, haven't you figured that out yet? [/b][/quote]
Although that being said he does bring up a good point.
Afterall wasnt that one of the underlying reasons behind what happened with Maxcash and the FTC several years ago? Industry cock-fighting?
LOL
LeeNoga, just so you know ... I'm not picking on you - I have more skeletons in my closet than you do I'm sure!!!! LOL
I just hate when people don't take responsibility for their actions ... & I guess having had a couple of really bad years and paying for my mistakes, I'm just sick of hearing how its not possible to come out the other side.
Because it is. And the other side can be brighter ;-)
Originally posted by cj@Jan 11 2005, 07:21 PM
Because it is. And the other side can be brighter ;-)
Just how many times HAS the sky been proclaimed to have fallen in the last 12 months? LOL
As i see it, this is just another reason for the industry to evolve and better itself further, of course, that could just be wishful thinking.
Nickatilynx
01-11-2005, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by *KK*+Jan 11 2005, 07:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (*KK* @ Jan 11 2005, 07:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@Jan 11 2005, 07:13 PM
So how much are all you affiliate programs based in the USA gonna pay me NOT to spam your programs?
;-)))
Your pikey logic doesn't have a damn place in this discussion pal, haven't you figured that out yet? [/b][/quote]
LOL , KK
btw saw STG earlier , will prolly call later in the week with him :)
I assumed everyone replying to this thread was already running a legitamate business.. I guess some of them arent
Reminds me of a story...
After golf some business associates and I were sitting with a "normal" guy.
Well after about 2 hours he starts giggling for apparently no reason.
So we ask "whats up"?
He goes your all theiving pikey fucking villains!!
We protest , of course , saying we are legitmate businessmen.
He says "THATS the giveaway , no real businessmen say "legitimate businessmen" nor do they say "this will make bank , and its totally legit" etc etc
;-)))
Nickatilynx
01-11-2005, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by Lee+Jan 11 2005, 07:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ Jan 11 2005, 07:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by *KK*@Jan 11 2005, 07:18 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@Jan 11 2005, 07:13 PM
So how much are all you affiliate programs based in the USA gonna pay me NOT to spam your programs?
;-)))
Your pikey logic doesn't have a damn place in this discussion pal, haven't you figured that out yet?
Although that being said he does bring up a good point.
Afterall wasnt that one of the underlying reasons behind what happened with Maxcash and the FTC several years ago? Industry cock-fighting? [/b][/quote]
Pikey's Law of Excuses.
"The more an excuse is used the less likely it is to be believed"
Thus you have doubled my "I will NOT spam you" fee , because they "he's doing it to cause me damage , we had no idea he was mailing" excuses are pretty used up!!!
;-))
TheEnforcer
01-11-2005, 10:30 PM
Some good discussion here. I'm sure people can adapt to the new realities and evolve and find other avenues to make up fr lost revenue.
Originally posted by Lee@Jan 11 2005, 07:19 PM
Although that being said he does bring up a good point.
Afterall wasnt that one of the underlying reasons behind what happened with Maxcash and the FTC several years ago? Industry cock-fighting?
It was probably claimed, disclaimed, reclaimed, and never really put to bed either way in that case. Nor will anyone ever know, since if it did go on, I wouldn't much expect either the FTC or the instigative parties to claim it did.
Here's a little story I do know from firsthand heresay ;)
Back in the day, a man owned an adult video store in Alabama. Seems this man forgot to pay his taxes correctly. Quite a spot he found himself in, it appeared. But an angel of mercy came down and said to him, "hey, pal, order these videos from this company and get them shipped down here to good ole Alabama, and we'll make a deal with you on this other little problem you're having."
Of course with that said, when the Feds actually arrived at the video production house, they had the videos that were considered potentially a very good case for obscenity in Alabama. They had been shipped across state lines as well. So the owner of the production company did some time in jail.
Not for shipping the videos, mind you. That was the least of his worries. It seems the Feds waltzed in the door with indictments for several employees besides the owner, and they also had a seating chart detailing where every one of those employees happened to be sitting when they arrived. They also knew a lot more about the business than just getting those videos shipped would have warranted them to know. The owner made a deal to get the employees out of the loop, his time for their freedom on the surface.
I've heard it said that the average time from the start of an investigation to a RICO conviction is around six years. That was before the start of the internet and all the other fast paced technologies that speed up the very fabric of time.
Originally posted by *KK*@Jan 11 2005, 07:32 PM
It was probably claimed, disclaimed, reclaimed, and never really put to bed either way in that case. Nor will anyone ever know, since if it did go on, I wouldn't much expect either the FTC or the instigative parties to claim it did.
To true.
Thankfully MC won one in that instance though :)
TheEnforcer
01-11-2005, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx+Jan 11 2005, 10:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ Jan 11 2005, 10:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by *KK*@Jan 11 2005, 07:18 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@Jan 11 2005, 07:13 PM
So how much are all you affiliate programs based in the USA gonna pay me NOT to spam your programs?
;-)))
Your pikey logic doesn't have a damn place in this discussion pal, haven't you figured that out yet?
LOL , KK
btw saw STG earlier , will prolly call later in the week with him :)
I assumed everyone replying to this thread was already running a legitamate business.. I guess some of them arent
Reminds me of a story...
After golf some business associates and I were sitting with a "normal" guy.
Well after about 2 hours he starts giggling for apparently no reason.
So we ask "whats up"?
He goes your all theiving pikey fucking villains!!
We protest , of course , saying we are legitmate businessmen.
He says "THATS the giveaway , no real businessmen say "legitimate businessmen" nor do they say "this will make bank , and its totally legit" etc etc
;-))) [/b][/quote]
hahahaha.. That's too damn funny!! :lol:
Nickatilynx
01-11-2005, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Jan 11 2005, 07:31 PM
Some good discussion here. I'm sure people can adapt to the new realities and evolve and find other avenues to make up fr lost revenue.
WTF do you think I've been doing for the last few months!!!!
;-))))
However I really like this "I will NOT spam you , if you pay me "
There is...blackmail , email , spamming...
How about BAMMING - the art of being paid NOT to spam.
;-)))
Originally posted by Lee+Jan 11 2005, 10:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ Jan 11 2005, 10:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-cj@Jan 11 2005, 07:21 PM
Because it is. And the other side can be brighter ;-)
Just how many times HAS the sky been proclaimed to have fallen in the last 12 months? LOL
As i see it, this is just another reason for the industry to evolve and better itself further, of course, that could just be wishful thinking. [/b][/quote]
well the sky did fall on me ... as it did fall on many others
we all have our weekness, and the sky has been falling for a couple of years now - not everyone can move smart and fast enough to the out of the way of the falling pieces.
I'm getting very good at working a broom LOL
LMAO @ that story Nick
The General said a similar thing to me once when we were having a conversation about mainstream ... I was about to start working on something and was labelling categories as 'adult' and 'mainstream' and he said 'yeah but in mainstream they don't call it mainstream' LOL
You can always spot a pornographer :rolleyes:
Nickatilynx
01-11-2005, 10:37 PM
When the sky falls it makes the stars and heavens more reachable :)
Nickatilynx
01-11-2005, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by cj@Jan 11 2005, 07:38 PM
LMAO @ that story Nick
The General said a similar thing to me once when we were having a conversation about mainstream ... I was about to start working on something and was labelling categories as 'adult' and 'mainstream' and he said 'yeah but in mainstream they don't call it mainstream' LOL
You can always spot a pornographer :rolleyes:
The kicker to that story is the "normal" guy was my lawyer ;-)))
Nickatilynx
01-11-2005, 10:55 PM
I've heard it said that the average time from the start of an investigation to a RICO conviction is around six years.
(singing)
You say racketerring and I say marketeering
marketeering , racketerring, racketeering , marketeering
Lets open an affiliate programme!!
;-))))
grimm
01-11-2005, 11:27 PM
every time this spam argument comes up, i walk down to my mailbox, pull out a bunch of catalogues, flyers and note cards, scratch my head, and throw them in the trash and wonder....if they make the electronic stuff illegal, why dont they start with the postal system... then i remember, oh yeah, its the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE... they make money off of it.
so the answer is, if the Federal government cannot make money off of it, they want to shut it down until such time that they can figure out a way to charge for it, then they will encourage it.
:)
TheEnforcer
01-11-2005, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx+Jan 11 2005, 10:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ Jan 11 2005, 10:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-TheEnforcer@Jan 11 2005, 07:31 PM
Some good discussion here. I'm sure people can adapt to the new realities and evolve and find other avenues to make up fr lost revenue.
WTF do you think I've been doing for the last few months!!!!
;-))))
However I really like this "I will NOT spam you , if you pay me "
There is...blackmail , email , spamming...
How about BAMMING - the art of being paid NOT to spam.
;-))) [/b][/quote]
Hahaha... I wouldn't be surprised to see someone try it!!
TheEnforcer
01-11-2005, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by grimm@Jan 11 2005, 11:28 PM
every time this spam argument comes up, i walk down to my mailbox, pull out a bunch of catalogues, flyers and note cards, scratch my head, and throw them in the trash and wonder....if they make the electronic stuff illegal, why dont they start with the postal system... then i remember, oh yeah, its the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE... they make money off of it.
so the answer is, if the Federal government cannot make money off of it, they want to shut it down until such time that they can figure out a way to charge for it, then they will encourage it.
:)
Ain't that the fucking truth. I can undrstand adult spam.... but mainstream. No fucking different than the boatloads of spam shit I get in my mailbox every day.
except that I've never received anything in my mailbox that says CUM GARGLING FUCK BAG ....
the day you do, your argument has weight :rolleyes:
Nickatilynx
01-11-2005, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by cj@Jan 11 2005, 08:43 PM
except that I've never received anything in my mailbox that says CUM GARGLING FUCK BAG ....
the day you do, your argument has weight :rolleyes:
So you haven't received the postcard I sent you yet , then?
;-))
LMFAO
:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:
grimm
01-11-2005, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by cj@Jan 11 2005, 08:43 PM
except that I've never received anything in my mailbox that says CUM GARGLING FUCK BAG ....
the day you do, your argument has weight :rolleyes:
hey i think i still get klixxx magazine or something
:agrin:
I get your point, im all in favor of banning adult spam, its not offensve, but its overrun my mailboxes. its out of control.
i wouldnt even let my son/daughter have their own mailbox. I would personally filter their mail.
grimm
01-11-2005, 11:53 PM
:rolleyes: and stop rolling your eyes at me :rolleyes:
>i wouldnt even let my son/daughter have their own mailbox. I would personally filter their mail.
a-fucking-men!!!!
almost every adult webmaster i know checks their child's inbox before letting them read their email ... and funnily enough, don't have many problems with kids receiving spam mail!
Originally posted by grimm@Jan 11 2005, 11:54 PM
:rolleyes: and stop rolling your eyes at me :rolleyes:
i'll do this instead
:P
Carrie
01-12-2005, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Peaches@Jan 11 2005, 07:13 PM
So...what happens if DannyWebmaster breaks the rules for a day and he gets found out by the feds before we find out and term him and we're responsible? Like KK said, when that happens, you will see affiliate programs go bye bye.
Or, what if JoeWebmaster gets pissed off at a sponsor and spams the sponsor using DannyWebmaster's affiliate code?
The feds crack down on the sponsor, who knows nothing about it, the feds and the sponsor crack down on DannyWebmaster, who also knows nothing about it, and the T.O.S. couldn't do a thing to stop it. Even the sponsor keeping so close an eye on DannyWebmaster that they're practically handing him toilet paper when he's done shitting couldn't do a thing to stop it.
Peaches
01-12-2005, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by cj@Jan 12 2005, 12:43 AM
except that I've never received anything in my mailbox that says CUM GARGLING FUCK BAG ....
the day you do, your argument has weight :rolleyes:
Hehe - we used to send those out to the owner of record for every number that called one of our 900 numbers. When little Johnny visits Granny and calls a porn site and she gets a porn magazine......
Never got in a lick of trouble for it either. The consumer had to fill out a form to stop it and I guess if we continued after that we would have been in shit, but sending it out in the first place is A-OK as far as the USPS is concerned.
Peaches
01-12-2005, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Carrie+Jan 12 2005, 01:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Carrie @ Jan 12 2005, 01:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Peaches@Jan 11 2005, 07:13 PM
So...what happens if DannyWebmaster breaks the rules for a day and he gets found out by the feds before we find out and term him and we're responsible? Like KK said, when that happens, you will see affiliate programs go bye bye.
Or, what if JoeWebmaster gets pissed off at a sponsor and spams the sponsor using DannyWebmaster's affiliate code?
The feds crack down on the sponsor, who knows nothing about it, the feds and the sponsor crack down on DannyWebmaster, who also knows nothing about it, and the T.O.S. couldn't do a thing to stop it. Even the sponsor keeping so close an eye on DannyWebmaster that they're practically handing him toilet paper when he's done shitting couldn't do a thing to stop it. [/b][/quote]
Exactly. It will be easier for programs to get rid of affiliates or only have a handful of trusted ones at that point.
Hell Puppy
01-12-2005, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by grimm@Jan 11 2005, 11:28 PM
every time this spam argument comes up, i walk down to my mailbox, pull out a bunch of catalogues, flyers and note cards, scratch my head, and throw them in the trash and wonder....if they make the electronic stuff illegal, why dont they start with the postal system... then i remember, oh yeah, its the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE... they make money off of it.
so the answer is, if the Federal government cannot make money off of it, they want to shut it down until such time that they can figure out a way to charge for it, then they will encourage it.
:)
The difference is you have to pay to send each piece of postal mail.
If it were free, like email is, you can bet we'd all have to have mailboxes the size of 55 gallon drums or larger. And we wouldn't be able to find our copy of TV Guide because it was buried underneath thousands of offers for dick pills and subscription offers to Nuns 'n Nazis.
...most of which would be postmarked Vancouver. :rolleyes:
SykkBoy
01-12-2005, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by Hell Puppy+Jan 12 2005, 12:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hell Puppy @ Jan 12 2005, 12:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-grimm@Jan 11 2005, 11:28 PM
every time this spam argument comes up, i walk down to my mailbox, pull out a bunch of catalogues, flyers and note cards, scratch my head, and throw them in the trash and wonder....if they make the electronic stuff illegal, why dont they start with the postal system... then i remember, oh yeah, its the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE... they make money off of it.
so the answer is, if the Federal government cannot make money off of it, they want to shut it down until such time that they can figure out a way to charge for it, then they will encourage it.
:)
The difference is you have to pay to send each piece of postal mail.
If it were free, like email is, you can bet we'd all have to have mailboxes the size of 55 gallon drums or larger. And we wouldn't be able to find our copy of TV Guide because it was buried underneath thousands of offers for dick pills and subscription offers to Nuns 'n Nazis.
...most of which would be postmarked Vancouver. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
last I heard, BP hosting wasn't exactly cheap and email lists even resembling quality weren't bargains...
mailing is hardly cheap....
Carrie
01-12-2005, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Jan 12 2005, 12:36 AM
The difference is you have to pay to send each piece of postal mail.
The store that has my postal mailbox has a huge trash can sitting right next to the boxes so that when you get junk mail you can toss it right in there and not even have to deal with taking it home. They shred it a few times and sell it as packing material. :)
Anyone got a URL where I can find out more about this FTC situation?
darksoft
01-12-2005, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Carrie+Jan 11 2005, 11:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Carrie @ Jan 11 2005, 11:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Hell Puppy@Jan 12 2005, 12:36 AM
The difference is you have to pay to send each piece of postal mail.
The store that has my postal mailbox has a huge trash can sitting right next to the boxes so that when you get junk mail you can toss it right in there and not even have to deal with taking it home. They shred it a few times and sell it as packing material. :)
Anyone got a URL where I can find out more about this FTC situation? [/b][/quote]
Hey sweetie! Haven't seen you or Mike around much since the newborn. Hope things are going well :)
Peaches
01-12-2005, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 12 2005, 02:12 AM
Anyone got a URL where I can find out more about this FTC situation?
http://ftc.gov/opa/2005/01/globalnetsolutions.htm
(stop being such a stranger! :okthumb: )
Anthony
01-12-2005, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by Hell Puppy+Jan 11 2005, 09:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hell Puppy @ Jan 11 2005, 09:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-grimm@Jan 11 2005, 11:28 PM
every time this spam argument comes up, i walk down to my mailbox, pull out a bunch of catalogues, flyers and note cards, scratch my head, and throw them in the trash and wonder....if they make the electronic stuff illegal, why dont they start with the postal system... then i remember, oh yeah, its the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE... they make money off of it.
so the answer is, if the Federal government cannot make money off of it, they want to shut it down until such time that they can figure out a way to charge for it, then they will encourage it.
:)
The difference is you have to pay to send each piece of postal mail.
If it were free, like email is, you can bet we'd all have to have mailboxes the size of 55 gallon drums or larger. And we wouldn't be able to find our copy of TV Guide because it was buried underneath thousands of offers for dick pills and subscription offers to Nuns 'n Nazis.
...most of which would be postmarked Vancouver. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
Where did you ever get the idea that sending email was free?
Originally posted by SykkBoy+Jan 12 2005, 12:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SykkBoy @ Jan 12 2005, 12:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Jan 12 2005, 12:36 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-grimm@Jan 11 2005, 11:28 PM
every time this spam argument comes up, i walk down to my mailbox, pull out a bunch of catalogues, flyers and note cards, scratch my head, and throw them in the trash and wonder....if they make the electronic stuff illegal, why dont they start with the postal system... then i remember, oh yeah, its the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE... they make money off of it.
so the answer is, if the Federal government cannot make money off of it, they want to shut it down until such time that they can figure out a way to charge for it, then they will encourage it.
:)
The difference is you have to pay to send each piece of postal mail.
If it were free, like email is, you can bet we'd all have to have mailboxes the size of 55 gallon drums or larger. And we wouldn't be able to find our copy of TV Guide because it was buried underneath thousands of offers for dick pills and subscription offers to Nuns 'n Nazis.
...most of which would be postmarked Vancouver. :rolleyes:
last I heard, BP hosting wasn't exactly cheap and email lists even resembling quality weren't bargains...
mailing is hardly cheap.... [/b][/quote]
all of the overheads are to get around various rules, which have only come in gradually over the years ...
i think we all still work under the perception that mail is cheap, because once upon a time all ya needed were a few pre-paid dialup accounts and a computer :biglaugh:
i know people who used to spam from their own internet accounts ... with their names on it and everything.
try doing that now and you'd have an anti on your doorstep with an uzi LOL
its still cheaper than sending physical mailouts because there is no 'per unit' cost as such ...
Hell Puppy
01-12-2005, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by Anthony+Jan 12 2005, 02:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Anthony @ Jan 12 2005, 02:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Jan 11 2005, 09:36 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-grimm@Jan 11 2005, 11:28 PM
every time this spam argument comes up, i walk down to my mailbox, pull out a bunch of catalogues, flyers and note cards, scratch my head, and throw them in the trash and wonder....if they make the electronic stuff illegal, why dont they start with the postal system... then i remember, oh yeah, its the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE... they make money off of it.
so the answer is, if the Federal government cannot make money off of it, they want to shut it down until such time that they can figure out a way to charge for it, then they will encourage it.
:)
The difference is you have to pay to send each piece of postal mail.
If it were free, like email is, you can bet we'd all have to have mailboxes the size of 55 gallon drums or larger. And we wouldn't be able to find our copy of TV Guide because it was buried underneath thousands of offers for dick pills and subscription offers to Nuns 'n Nazis.
...most of which would be postmarked Vancouver. :rolleyes:
Where did you ever get the idea that sending email was free? [/b][/quote]
Silly me.
Yes, there's a base cost, but I'm sure you get the point, you dont have to pay per message like you do with postal mail.
Originally posted by Carrie+Jan 12 2005, 12:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Carrie @ Jan 12 2005, 12:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Peaches@Jan 11 2005, 07:13 PM
So...what happens if DannyWebmaster breaks the rules for a day and he gets found out by the feds before we find out and term him and we're responsible? Like KK said, when that happens, you will see affiliate programs go bye bye.
Or, what if JoeWebmaster gets pissed off at a sponsor and spams the sponsor using DannyWebmaster's affiliate code?
The feds crack down on the sponsor, who knows nothing about it, the feds and the sponsor crack down on DannyWebmaster, who also knows nothing about it, and the T.O.S. couldn't do a thing to stop it. Even the sponsor keeping so close an eye on DannyWebmaster that they're practically handing him toilet paper when he's done shitting couldn't do a thing to stop it. [/b][/quote]
Firstly, why would this happen?
JoeWebmaster isn't going to make any money, so why would he send traffic to someone else's account?
These vindictive ideas are a bit of a reach ... there is no logic behind using this as an argument against the FTC holding the program owner responsible for affiliates actions, because its a rare situation that can never be planned for ANYWAY.
The affiliate manager would get word of a problem, contact DannyWebmaster who would deny involvement. DannyWebmasters account would be closed down and depending on their relationship with affiliate program would find a solution for their other traffic.
If by chance this 1 freak occurance just happened to get the FTC's attention, how can they prove you benefited from the 'whatever' traffic if you closed down the account before they told you to?
I think we're taking this a bit literally ... your example case wouldn't even get their attention - even sadaam hussain is being given right to a trial :rolleyes:
As an affiliate program owner its pretty simple .... just don't deal with cockholsters ............. but no matter how well you prepare, shit just happens sometimes. Its a lot more common for a guilty person to get away with murder than for an innocent person to be convicted, so why waste energy preparing for something that is very unlikely its ever going to be an issue?
grimm
01-12-2005, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by cj+Jan 11 2005, 08:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cj @ Jan 11 2005, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-grimm@Jan 11 2005, 11:54 PM
:rolleyes: and stop rolling your eyes at me :rolleyes:
i'll do this instead
:P [/b][/quote]
that works :blink:
dantheman
01-12-2005, 09:19 AM
hey keep Dannywebmaster out of your discussions, he's just a small time guy trying to make enough money to buy his sweetie some goodies
:)
Peaches
01-12-2005, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by dantheman@Jan 12 2005, 10:20 AM
hey keep Dannywebmaster out of your discussions, he's just a small time guy trying to make enough money to buy his sweetie some goodies
:)
:P
Missed you in Vegas :(
dantheman
01-12-2005, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Peaches+Jan 12 2005, 09:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Jan 12 2005, 09:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-dantheman@Jan 12 2005, 10:20 AM
hey keep Dannywebmaster out of your discussions, he's just a small time guy trying to make enough money to buy his sweetie some goodies
:)
:P
Missed you in Vegas :( [/b][/quote]
I missed you also sweetie. You know you dont think about not going right up till it's here then while all your friends are together having fun and doing biz you really really miss it/them. I'm going to make a big effort of make the summer show so I can catch up :)
gonzo
01-12-2005, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by *KK*+Jan 11 2005, 10:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (*KK* @ Jan 11 2005, 10:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jan 11 2005, 07:19 PM
Although that being said he does bring up a good point.
Afterall wasnt that one of the underlying reasons behind what happened with Maxcash and the FTC several years ago? Industry cock-fighting?
It was probably claimed, disclaimed, reclaimed, and never really put to bed either way in that case. Nor will anyone ever know, since if it did go on, I wouldn't much expect either the FTC or the instigative parties to claim it did.
Here's a little story I do know from firsthand heresay ;)
Back in the day, a man owned an adult video store in Alabama. Seems this man forgot to pay his taxes correctly. Quite a spot he found himself in, it appeared. But an angel of mercy came down and said to him, "hey, pal, order these videos from this company and get them shipped down here to good ole Alabama, and we'll make a deal with you on this other little problem you're having."
Of course with that said, when the Feds actually arrived at the video production house, they had the videos that were considered potentially a very good case for obscenity in Alabama. They had been shipped across state lines as well. So the owner of the production company did some time in jail.
Not for shipping the videos, mind you. That was the least of his worries. It seems the Feds waltzed in the door with indictments for several employees besides the owner, and they also had a seating chart detailing where every one of those employees happened to be sitting when they arrived. They also knew a lot more about the business than just getting those videos shipped would have warranted them to know. The owner made a deal to get the employees out of the loop, his time for their freedom on the surface.
I've heard it said that the average time from the start of an investigation to a RICO conviction is around six years. That was before the start of the internet and all the other fast paced technologies that speed up the very fabric of time. [/b][/quote]
You forgot to mention how this could be avoided by a Zip Code list...
Dianna Vesta
01-12-2005, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by cj@Jan 11 2005, 10:21 PM
LOL
LeeNoga, just so you know ... I'm not picking on you - I have more skeletons in my closet than you do I'm sure!!!! LOL
I just hate when people don't take responsibility for their actions ... & I guess having had a couple of really bad years and paying for my mistakes, I'm just sick of hearing how its not possible to come out the other side.
Because it is. And the other side can be brighter ;-)
Amen! That's for damn sure.
I barely even doing adult any more but I still have adult sites and an interest in all of this. Plus, I enjoy Oprano and its people.
No TOS, laws, rules or anything else is going to protect you from harassment. If the law or government wants to impose on you they will. Trust me on that. There are lots of people who went broke fighting decency lawsuits based on moral standards…. Years later and no money they win? I don’t think so.
I’m not surprised by any of this really. It’s going to get worse and I’m truly surprised at the ones who didn’t start shifting sails a long time ago when shit started hitting the fan. If you’ve been in business, especially the adult biz you watch the transitions and you know that it will hit absolute bottom before it changes into a new horizon. I’d simply ride the tides, not invest, and do business carefully and with a watchful eye. Things are bound to change.
Call it Tam’s prediction but this Bush ride is going to get really scary. You don’t even know the half of it. On top of that the earth is changing and your ass might be under water soon so sell everything, reduce your overhead and start living your dreams! I’m building a commune out here on my land (that will probably go under water too) so if you run out of money just come pitch your tent. I’ll feed you but I’ll also make you work harder then you ever have! Lol
Originally posted by gonzo@Jan 12 2005, 07:53 AM
You forgot to mention how this could be avoided by a Zip Code list...
Hahahaha, I don't sell them. ;)
And actually, if they want you that badly, they'll just keep calling to place the order until they get someone who fucks up and does it. But then again, that's a different story from the same time frame.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.