looks like the FTC is going to hold

[JoesHO]

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!!!!!!!

[TheEnforcer]

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]

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.

[Lee]

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]

And the day when the affiliate is a thing of the past draws one giant step closer.

[LeeNoga]

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.

[Lee]

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]

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.

[Lee]

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.

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]

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.

[*KK*]

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.

[Lee]

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]

Originally posted by Lee+Jan 11 2005, 08:09 PM-->