Slashdot Mirror
Extortion and the UGO Network?
An Anonymous Webmaster asks: "I'm the webmaster of one of the largest websites on the UGO Network. This past month UGO gave notice to all affiliates that they say all guarantees are gone and will only make payments up to February's ad traffic at half rate. Yes they are currently 2 months behind on payments. (This includes HardOCP, ShackNews, BluesNews,
VoodoExtreme, Telefragged,
OldManMurray, my website and many others. UGO handed out contracts last week saying we must forfeit all our rights to previously owed money and rights to sue them to get those last 2 checks. Yes that's right, if we don't
sign a paper saying we wont sue them they will withhold 2 months of payments they already owe and have available to them. Does anyone have any realistic advice for all these webmasters? A lawsuit just doesnt seem like it would really net any cash." Now this just doesn't sound fair at all. It's a shame that these big site networks aren't able to pay their sites what's owed, but is such extortion really the answer? I'm sure many webmasters may have found themselves in this position before. What did you do to resolve this kind of problem?
At the minimum, it seems that UGO is telling all of its clients to go away. It's probably better to take the money that's being offered and go elsewhere, as if they lose all their clients then all the future money is gone.
McDonald's sues London Greenpeace for presenting the public with the facts
Disney expands its international market with help from the CIA
Coors uses consumer support to help finance the KKK
Ending oil protests with executions Nigeria belongs to Shell
Pepsi dealt with the oppressive regimes in the Phillipines to build another Taco Bell
General Motos creates competition with their "whipsawing" tactics role
Dupont alone is responsible for four percent of the ozone layer hole
Don't know what the limit in your state is but it varies from state to state anywhere from $250 to $5000 per claim. If they pay you monthly, you can break up the total amount into seperate claims for each month. File them a couple of days apart so that they'll get assigned to different days for the hearings. Ugo will either have to send a lawyer to represent them (for a week or more) or risk a summary judgement against them for non-appearance. Your state then sends them a notice of finding (guilty, of course) and even if they go out of business, you're first in line to claim their assets under the bankrupty laws. (court judgements always get first claim to any forfetures.) Remember, they can't screw you, I mean, change the contract without your permission.
Call their bluff. Do not sign anything. Send them notice via certified mail that they breached contract, and after 30 days, if you do not get resolution, notify them you are terminating it, and call a collection agency. That's the advice I gave to someone else in this boat, and it worked.
UGO's ad-based revenue stream got shafted like everyone else's. I can sympathize with this. I don't sympathize with their treatment of affiliates. I've read the types of things they try to force affiliates into signing and, truly, I think selling your soul to Satan leaves you with more freedom and legal recourse. And hey, it's Satan, you expect twisted evil plots to cheat you.
I advise any UGO affiliates who think they are being screwed now to re-read their contracts a few times, and carefully ponder each clause, specifically regarding termination and payment. Then go take a few advil and lie down.
Suing will probably cost you more than you stand to gain. Just remember, YAHOO (You Always Have Other Options). They are trying not to pay because they claim to have no money. However, things like this seem to suggest otherwise:
http://news.excite.ca/news/bw/001218/n y-ugo-networ ks
Perhaps the affected parties could get together to file suit against UGO. IANAL.
I'm amazed about the number of /.ers who recommend caving into this company's threat. "Oh, they have no money". Bullshit! They have at least enough money to pay their lawyers and their executives.
Perhaps they should renegotiate their loans, their executive pay and their contracts. But merely screwing over their customers is not acceptable to me.
...C) hiring third-rate porn writers to be primary writers and editors...
I resent that. My pornography is always at least second-rate and at times reaches first-rate status.
Yours,
An Ex-UGO Writer/Editor Who Doesn't Like Them Very Much, But Writes Good Pornography.
From the information you present this is an illegal contract that cannot be enforced even if you sign it. In order for a contract to be enforceable, there must be an "Exchange for Value". In this case, UGO says that it will only pay past debt if you sign away your right to sue. What is UGO offering you in addition to the past debt owed you? If nothing, then this is simply extortion and an illegal contract. To be legal the contract must go something like this. You convey your right to sue UGO to UGO, in exchange UGO gives you "Consideration" (ie $$$ or something of value) plus the money owed. The formula would be; Conveyance+extra$$$=contract The past debt doesn't really figure in the contract b/c it is already yours. If UGO isn't paying you the past debt then they are in breach. By the way the transfer cannot be for a token amount like a dollar, more like at least a $100, though mileage may vary in your jurisdiction. You should get a current copy of the contract from UGO and consult a local attorney. For God's sakes, don't tell UGO any of the above. It is likely that you may be able to sign UGO's K, get the 2 months past due, and retain your right to sue. So then you can sue UGO as soon as the check clears;^} If you can't afford an attorney because UGO is in default to you, Call a local law school. Many run legal aid programs. Though you will end up with a wet behind the ears whippersnapper, he/she is usually backstopped by a professor who will know the issues at hand. Large company sc***ing a smallholder is the sort of scenario that gets law students excited.
I can't believe you're not considering filing suit. Take a close look at your current contract and contact a lawyer. Some of the websites were mentioned in the summary: HardOCP, ShackNews, BluesNews, VoodoExtreme, Telefragged, OldManMurray... Get these guys organized, start a lawsuit toghether, and squeee UGO where it hurts. I dont know what other debts they owe, but it seems they're trying to extort you guys in favor of "larger, more powerful" debt holders. If thats the case, as a group, you may be the largest debt holder. Do not give that up for free. You should be able to force UGO to trade the debt they owe you for equity in the company. Im sure the smart and savvy people running these websites could do a much better job of running UGO.
so whatever you do, DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING LIMITING YOUR RIGHTS! This contract is written by their lawyers to do one thing.. !@#%!@#$ you over!
GET ORGANIZED with the other large web sites, and put forward an organized front. UGO can bully you guys one at a time, but not if you all stand together.
You're already looking at lost money from UGO, more is obviously on the horizon, so whatever they're trying to withhold now may be just the trickle before the dam breaks. Forget about actually getting paid in dollars.. they dont have any.
If you go to trial, or seriously threaten such.. they will likey reconsider, and may try to work out a debt for equity swap were you get like 50 cents on the dollar. Remember, you are their customers.. since its through your web sites that they make money for ads. They can't alienate you to the extent that you pick up shop and leave.
good luck
hawk
I believe that all 50 states require you to maintain a safe following distance, which is enough to stop your car in time no matter what the car in front of you did. Barring a sudden shoot backwards, I have yet to see any explanation of how you can hit the car in front of you while keeping this distance--it's a matter of definition . . .
hawk, esq.
> stopped in the road to turn without signaling
If he couldn't stop in time when the car in front of him decellerated, he was following too close. Driving the same speed as the car in front of you while following too close is driving too fast.
hawk
hawk, esq.
>you on the right, and slams their vehicle into the space in front of
>you when all of the traffic ahead is slowing down, forcing you to stab
>your brakes hard.
But that's not "the car in front of you." that you're hitting--it's a car from another lane, and the collision would be his fault.
hawk
If you want a lawyer fool enough to take a contingency fee on a small amount against a dotcom . . .
I once had someone come in expecting me to *defend* a wrongful death case on a contingency (How would that work? I pay a third of the judgment if he loses?
And the one hurt on a motorcycle, expecting me to arrange for "my compensation."--the fool had run into the car in front of him (Unless the vehicle in front of you disabled its backup lights and suddenly went into reverse, the fact that you collided with it is conclusive evidence that you were following too close . .
hawk, esq
That's the preferred method of dealing with scumbags where I'm from.
Seriously though, you obviously need to have your lawyer call them. If they owe you money under one contract you don't need to sign another one to get it. If the money involved isn't worth an hour of legal bills, then sign and forget it.
Whaddaya want fer nothin', rubber biscuits?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
You have to sue, and sue now.
IANAL, but know a bit about bankruptcy law.
In the US, the first to file suit is usually the first to get paid (lienholders are always first), in cases of corporate debt and bankruptcy. Which means oftentimes big established companies will sue for payment at the slightest hint of a debtor company going south, and that letter looks like a strong hint!
This really pisses me off.
I say take a page out of the Scientologist's book and sue the living daylights out of everyone involved.
LRon said are most effective as a tool of harassment, and i think there are enough people affected by this bullshit to put together a pretty good class action and otherwise get sue happy.
Well, the funny thing is that web advertising is probably about as effective as any other form of advertising except the advertisers finally get to see how few people are interested in something directly (i.e., enough to Click-thru[tm]) and use that knowledge to force the sites dependent on ads to get less than they would in print (ignoring the fact that print costs more...).
On that line of thought, web media should charge a helluva lot more for web ads because the advertisers should pay for the privilege of such direct feedback!
As far as the effectiveness of advertising, eh, just depends on how you mean "effective." The main concern is branding and helping you remember their product when you need that sort of item. Just like learning a foreign language, saturation in the terminology is what helps the woeful memory the most.
$0.02USD,
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Take the 1/2 of the 2 payments and then sue them in small claims court. Tell the judge that you signed the agreement not to sue under duress. Withholding money would definitely be considered duress.
Small claims is easy to do yourself, if the amounts involved are not above the limit ($5000 most places, I think). Unfortunately, you may have trouble with jurisdiction if your agreement with UGO specified one that is not close to you.
Once you get a judgement, you may have to go to the collections agents that others recommended.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
to being both, the first and last videogame magazine web site on the internet. ;p
Now, if I could only get a new group of writers to do reviews and articles! Sigh... for nothing more than a job reference... geee, what happened to the days when a job reference held inherent value in and of itself?
Right. The real reason for subscription charges is to filter out subscribers that aren't interested in the content or related advertisements (or who can't afford advertised goods and services). It generally doesn't even pay for the cost of printing, let alone production - but it does save the magazine from delivering to people their advertisers aren't interested in.
OK, I was a bit sloppy. When I said "no amount of complaining, emailing or suing will get you cash.", I should have ended with "any significant amount of cash". The problem is that, when most internet companies implode, they do it much more quickly and successfully than older-style companies. There may be a few scraps left over, but they probably won't add up to much, especially if you have to pay any fees to go get them.
The "Pennies on the dollar" that you refer to will probably end up being less than what they can get if they take the money and run now.
Many of these ad networks have business models that guarantee that they will eventually fail.
If they are forced to go out of business, no amount of complaining, emailing or suing will get you cash.
I'd chalk it up to experience and move on. You may use this as an opportunity to exit the web, as you may find (as your network did) that it's much harder to run at a profit than it was a year or two ago. Tough conclusion to reach, but it's better to reach it with a few bucks left in your pocket.
I don't think that cooperatives based on advertising only are going to suceed...the ad market has been drying up for a long time and still is.
More likely to suceed would be a gaming site like this:
- A co-op based on membership fees, where visitors to the site would pay like $5 a year
- The co-op as a whole sells merchandise --
computer parts and stuff of interest to gamers at good prices
- Individual sites within the co-op provide real content and little duplication (i.e. don't need 5 cut-and-paste news sites). No vanity sites either (you know what I mean).
- The sites within the coop are run by paid staff at a fixed (and reasonable, i.e. not enough to buy porsches and stuff).
- a small amount may be made by the co-op by selling advertising.
- excess revenue from hardware sales etc. is either distributed back to the membership (i.e. the people who visit the co-op sites) yearly or used to build the site.
It'd be really, really hard to run such a thing without some big time corruption or someone getting in there to skim funds off. But it could work.
There is a big of a difference between terminating an agreement without payment and refusing to pay (with or without terminating the agreement) money they already owe.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I don't know about any particullar ones, but you may even be able to find one that will pay you 2/3 or so the amount owed themselves, in exchange for selling the debt to them.
That is, they will take on all of the risk that the debt won't be settled, and just pay you some fixed portion of it. Collection agencies have a huge absolute advantage on collecting on bad debt. A lot of times all it takes is a letter from the collection agency to convince somebody to pay up. They know about all of the legal options there are to getting your money (liens on property/future income, small claims, whatever), and can do it quickly and cheaply.
If you don't think it's worth a lawyer, contact a collection agency. If nothing else, they should be able to tell you the likelyhood of collecting.
However, in some states (Illinois, for one) you can be held in contempt of court for not paying on a judgement against you. This means that you can get thrown in jail. I know this from personal experience (yucky). I don't know how this applies to a corporate entity, however.
Pope Felix the Scurrilous.
Pope Felix the Scurrilous.
Computer Geek by day, religious Icon by night.
Not trying to offend, but do you know anything at all about class-action lawsuits? Do you know which party is the only party to actually win anything of value in these things? What on Earth even made you suggest this?
Cheers,
By the way, I'm a partner in a large website and we make a little bit of money from banner ads. But we recognized pretty early on that the whole banner ad business was smoke and mirrors and my partner and I decided that if we were going to have any revenues that we would depend on that they would have to come from somewhere else. Also, we've searched out the best deals on web hosting, even to the point of putting some of our repetitively viewed files on a non-bandwidth limited DSL connection. It works...we have no out of pocket expenses and when all is said and done, we even clear a few bucks at the end of the month.
I think that if you look at the kinds of web sites that are flailing around in the banner ad crash, you'll see that they're often birds of a feather with little to differentiate themselves. And since their operators have hitched themselves to a (rapidly) falling star, they are faced with the fact that they are either going to go out of business, find a business model that works, or cease to be a "business" and turn back into what many of them used to be: a hobby.
There's not a lot of difference between the tightening of the high-tech industry and the demise of web site after web site. Those that are unsteady to begin with are going to go away and the industry is going to consolidate into a few successful businesses and many "successful" hobbies. And guess what? There's nothing wrong with that! It's the way that capitalism works.
-h-
Sue for non-payment, if you don't get your money at least you'll stand a chance of eventually closing the b*stards down.
In England (not sure what the situation is in US) I believe you can start court proceedings to close the company if debts are unpaid. Small companies use it quite a lot to force slow paying larger companies to send them a cheque!
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
If I were a moderator I'd have to give this one a +1. Thanks for the giggle. :-)
--WorLord
I used to work for UGO about 3 years ago (or so) as the "Affiliate Manager". (This was back in the day before Joe Robinson and his cronies in New York acquired UGO). In fact, I left that job *because* of the acquisition - after moving to San Francisco (one of the first places on earth I would want to live) only six months prior for the express reason of working for UGO, there was no way in hell I was going to haul my butt over to New York (probably the last place on *earth* I will ever want to live) to work with that pack of wolves.
All I can say is that the "NY suits," - as we called them back then - were as ruthless and morally depraved back then as they seem to be now. They had a history of having the "Inverse Midas-Touch" curse: everything (and everyONE) they've touched, before and after the aquisition, has turned to crap. Their business plans for the future of UGO (which *used* to stand for "Unified Gamers Online", BTW) could easily be summarized as "throw money at it until it becomes profitable, and milk the affiliates for all they are worth before giving them the finger." Once UGO was purchased (at an unbelievable profit to the original owner), the people on Park Ave. managed to run what was once a dedicated online gaming resource for the People(TM) into the ground by A) Firing any and all people who were associated with the "Old Regime," B) spreading out to other, unrelated forms of entertainment, and C) hiring third-rate porn writers to be primary writers and editors.
They have a legal team seemingly funded from on high by the Prince of Darkness Himself, as is evidenced by exactly how badly and often they've screwed over employees, affiliates, and anyone else who's had the unfortunate foresight to get involved with them on any level. In fact, I've seen roughly 30 people that I personally know (or knew) get trampled by them monetarily speaking, and nothing has ever happened to them to balance the scales. Any ex-affiliate or ex-employee of UGO that doesn't speak badly about them was probably paid an unusually high bonus for their silence (and I speak from personal experience on that, but screw 'em: if they wanted my _continued_ silence, I'd still be getting checks.)
If I were you, I would take the last two months pay and jet. My experience with the (many) other situations of this kind dealing with UGO would strongly suggest that a legal battle with them will be nothing short of a waste of your time and a massive drain on your resources. The only way you'll actually get something out of it is to take whatever money they're offering and wash your hands of it. It may not be the most honorable way of handling the situation, but in this case, I'd bet a week's pay that taking the honorable road will earn you starvation (if this web site is your only source of income).
--WorLord
> I am anything but a lawyer, and my solution is potentially libelous, but it a solution that protesters, Unions and consumers employ to publicly shame a contract-violator.
I'm not a lawyer eather. I believe the idea is it's only libal if it's not true. But the suck part is it's on you to prove it's true not them to prove it's a lie. As I understand it and I'm not a lawyer. And this time I didn't read a Nolo book on the subject so I could be talking out my....
Side note.. I don't like larg Unions and larg protestor organisations. Much like larg companys they lose touch and go into bully mode..
Small Unions, protestors and companys I like. They remain in touch and do right by those represented. (The workers, the issues, the consummer)
Anyway... This is a good idea.
I don't actually exist.
Just tell them you will drop them.
The reasoning is three fold.
1. They are fearful you will sue. While it's not practical that has not entered the logic. So they'll be conserned that you will sue for moneys owed and they lose you.
2. Something stinks. A sign of bad things. Cut the loss now instead of later when it'll be worse.
3. If they think they need this then if you stick around you may find your survival depends on the rights they are now asking you to sign away.
It is unlikely you'll need those rights normally but when someone asks you to forfit them then chances are really good you'll need em really soon.
Lawsutes are impractical.
So drop them.. If they cave then stay if they don't sticking around is probably not a very healthy thing to do.
I'd like to add. In todays banner ad market I'm supprised more websites don't folow Slashdot's example and set up a banner ad server like AdFu..
Ad services were nice. Someone RELIABLE dose all the hard work and you generate the traffic. It WAS a good healthy relationship. But things went bad. Unreliable services came up and no-so-savy people would buy out successful services.
Eventually everyone would cave to pressuers and go the dishonnest route.
There are some honnest guys left. They'll die off or get take over. The ecconomy is bad. The middle men won't survive. Just cut them out and stay afloat.
I don't actually exist.
This needs a much higher score then +1... I will shamelessly burn karma to get it noticed.
Damn these allergies
What they are saying is, basically, we're broke, we can pay you all 2 more checks, and call it even, or we'll just withhold it all and you can take us to court.
You can't get blood from a stone.
Sounds to me like UGO wouldn't be able to pay you even if they wanted to fulfill their obligations, because of cash-flow problems. My advice is to talk to a lawyer to figure out what you can realistically get from them, then cut your losses and move your website somewhere else.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
You can sue 'em until the cows come home, but if they don't have any money, there really isn't much point.
I guess you might get some priority treatment when they go through bankruptcy, but its not like they are going to have any assets that are worth anything anyway.
Save your time and money and cosider it a (painfull) lesson learned.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
publicize it on Slashdot! That'll show 'em.
Oh, wait...
The days of getting paid 6 figures a year (or even five) for cutting and pasting news, or using the words "pimpdaddy smackdown" on your website is way over. It's a wonder UGO lasted as long as they did. Those who are smart, like OMM, saw the writing on the wall and made contingency plans.
/.'ing of your site, and your in hock to you ISP for thousands of dollars if you are running sko more cost effective co-lo. This makes networks like UGO sort of a required thing.
/. guys) continue to make a living this way? Probably not, he'll have to get a day job or start selling original content. But at least the sites will continue for those who want to run it as a hobby, and they wont have to worry about bandwidth costs.
/. works.
God knows what someone like Blue is going to do. Of all the sites, his is the most useful gaming cut and paste site on the net.
The problem has been, and will continue to be, the cost of bandwidth. Serving out 100k hits a day or greater just costs way too much money for an independent person to deal with unless they are independently wealthy. One good
But networks can't exist on ad banner money alone, and users expect the web to either be free or, failing that, MASSIVE bang for the buck.
I still maintain that the furure of these networks is to offer massive content at a yearly subscription rate, paying affiliates by continuing to use ad banners. How would it work? Like this. Say an ad banner network, GAN, has 50 affiliates. They offer full access to all 50 affiliates for 9.95 a year. (here's the massive content/bang for the buck part) Now since the network cant survive on that alone and pay their affiliates, they also offer one single ad banner on their affiliate sites (at a rate much lower than has been done previously) and they pay their affiliates that way.
For those who say "no fucking way I'm paying a yearly subscription and still put up with ad banners", well that's how magazines work. You pay your 4.95 for newsweek or "out" magazine AND LO AND BEHOLD! The mag ALSO has advertisements. And newspapers work the same way. And fucking paying for cable TV doesnt stop the commercials. Jesus, they even play commercials in front of movies in the theater now. Buck up and get with the fucking program hippie. The web isnt any different.
Will Blue (or even the
To think that anyone could make a living, or even deserve to, simply posting links readers send in is a little ludicrous. And yeah I understand the irony that that is exactly how
S.
http://www.stepto.com
They made a promise that they are now trying to break. Don't be seduced by the quick cash settlement. Stand your ground.
If it is not possible to get a lawyer or you just don't want to get a lawyer then here is some advice.
Don't make any aural arguments or aural agreements with them. Do all correspondence in writing. That way you have a record of all that is said. It will also remove the ambiguity, emotion, and give all parties time to think through their responses.
Get your final agreement signed and on company letterhead. Don't give them a way out.
They are breaking the contract; most contracts include sections detailing what to do if the contract is broken. Read and re-read the contract.
Quote the contract, their documents, and their correspondence to you in your written correspondence to them.
Good luck.
I wonder if the contract says that he gives up all rights to Sue them, or just to sew them over this issue.
If they do have the money it would be an interesting (don't know the legality) tactic to allow them to later change the rules of the service or what-not, and point to this contracts "no sue" clause as protection.
Yet one more reason a lawyer should be involved on your side. (and you should think of a different group to do buisness with).
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Don't forget that the 1/3rd paid for legal fees is tax-deductible. That means you could recover an a total of 10% more through legal means. Probably not worth it for other matters:
- Legal procedures could take months - they might go bankrupt or shut down before you can collect.
- They aren't likely to keep you around as a client if you sue them. If you don't have any better options out there then you might need to keep collecting you 50% to stay in business.
-- Virtual Windows Project
The affected webmasters should team up and file a class-action lawsuit against the bastards. It would save a bundle on legal fees and would probably net a positive result.
And the one hurt on a motorcycle, expecting me to arrange for "my compensation."--the fool had run into the car in front of him (Unless the vehicle in front of you disabled its backup lights and suddenly went into reverse, the fact that you collided with it is conclusive evidence that you were following too close . . .)
I don't know if that's necessarily the case when someone speeds past you on the right, and slams their vehicle into the space in front of you when all of the traffic ahead is slowing down, forcing you to stab your brakes hard.
In this situations you *were* keeping a safe distance, but the guy now in front of you was driving unsafely.
Guess what? This happens ALL THE TIME in Seattle. Usually on the I-90 -> I-5 N offramp.
So whose fault would that be? I've nearly hit people in the rear because of this kind of thing before - and usually I keep a good car length or three between me and the cars in front.
Simon
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
But that's not "the car in front of you." that you're hitting--it's a car from another lane, and the collision would be his fault.
:) It's in exactly the same position and location that the car that *was* in front of me would have been if I'd been driving too close.
It is at the time I hit it
I guess it all depends on your definition of the vehicle in front of you.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Probably the same thing you just did. Wave those last two checks (at 1/2 value, which is more or less 1 check) goodbye, and post an anonymous story about it to Slashdot and other places to exact a satisfactory revenge for being cheated out of money.
Defrauded ... "bent over for legal fees."
What is the fraud?
They said they would pay, and then the didn't. Right. Sounds more like business failure than fraud. Well they offered more than they could pay! Would that be closer to "irrational exuberance" or the same dream world that made the sites themselves believe they were worth this kind of money.
This is business failure, and there is going to be a heck of a lot more of it! As someone said above, get used to it. As to the legal fees, all claimants should be faced with being "bent over" for legal fees, they might actually do a cost benefit analysis of whether litigation was worthwhile, instead of clogging our courts with fantasy litigation!
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes "Who Keeps the Keepers Themselves" ~ Juvenal
If they stay in business, I would certainly agree with you. But most of the advice people are giving is predicated on the assumption that this company will survive.
... no business.
Take the "shady business practice" (and yes I would agree it is shady). While calling it normal, generally, would be unfair, it is certainly normal for a company in these financial straits.
Step back though. How many people are going to continue doing business with a company that renegs on contracts in this way? What kind of life expectancy would you give a company that takes advantage of a significant portion of its revenue base in this way? Everyone walks away, and next week, next month
Now, in light of how unwise, or perhaps better read -- desperate -- these actions now appear, what conduct is normal. What can we infer about their business condition? Better yet, as an unsecured creditor holding on to a company headed for bankruptcy court, do you move in now to negotiate, or hang out on the sideline and watch their "burn rate" eat up any chance you have of recovery. Payroll and taxes take priority over most everything else.
I'm not saying it's pretty, normal, moral or acceptable, only that it is normal, under the circumstances. And it bodes ill for the circumstances. One message said they recently picked up 80 million in capital. If that capital is on fire, don't expect much more.
More importantly, if they have term contracts with this company, the sooner they settle out, the sooner they can do business with someone else. Cut the deal, and RUN, don't walk, to a different vendor.
Seems most people's complaints spring from the unequal bargaining power of the two parties, and the ridiculous contracts that people signed. Again, not too much of a surprise. I'd venture noone bothered to negotiate, much less talk to an attorney. Why? Because it was a great deal. Almost money for nothing. Is it a surprise that it has evaporated in the daylight of a bear market?
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes "Who Keeps the Keepers Themselves" ~ Juvenal
While I can understand your frustration, this is NOT extortion. For what it's worth, it is called a settlement. They are offering to compromise debts for lesser amounts. Welcome to business 101. Forget the attorney, he'll probably just cost you money.
No, you could always wait 'till they file bankruptcy, and then wait, as an UNSECURED CREDITOR, to see how much is left over to pay the debt to you. What, you've never had a customer file for bankruptcy before?! This is just the beginning!
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes "Who Keeps the Keepers Themselves" ~ Juvenal
(Blatantly-self-interested message follows, mod down at will.)
One has to have a WAY to pay with micropayments. Aside from e-gold (everyone who knows me knew THAT was coming!) there's ecoin, whose site is apparently down right now, but they show a lot of promise for simplicity compared to DigiGold, even though there's even less of an exchange market just yet.
IMNSHO, YMMV, etc. Contact me if you wish to try e-gold. Thanks.
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
--
If the contract was terminated and the only question was whether to accept partial payment or fight for more, your analysis is reasonable.
But as I read the question, this guy is being asked to accept a unilateral, retroactive change to an existing *and ongoing* contract. If his company agrees, what's next? They'll have no grounds to complain when the company retroactively cuts payments in half again in 6 months, then again, then yet again. Having gotten away with it once, why on earth wouldn't the company try the same trick again?
Worse, by accepting this it's possible that his company is setting itself up for a lawsuit for "breech of contract" once it decides that enough is enough and tries to yank the ads before the end of the contract. Right now, it's likely that the other company has breeched the contract and his employer can yank the ads without risk. (The details, as always, are in the contract.) Once they've demonstrated a willingness to honor the contract despite non-payment, they might lose the right to consider non-payment a material breech in the future.
IANAL, and I'll be the first to admit that this is one of those cases where you need to bring one in. Not to tell you what assholes the other guys are, but to tell you what you need to do to keep your options open in the future.
P.S., if we are talking about an ongoing contract, the money at question isn't just the late payments. It's also half of every payment through the end of the contract. A lawyer might be able to make a good case that *this* is amount of money in question in any suit, plus treble damages for breech of contract.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
If you do cave:
What's to say they'll still pay you if you DO sign the new contract? They can still hold the money and NOW they only are liable for that!
Make sure they have the money (Cashiers Check) at the time of contract signing, use escrow, or something so that they don't get 'ya twice!
UGO obviously anticipate a class action and are trying to limit the number of class members with the waiver. You could wait and see if anyone else initiates a class action suit, and then become a class member for little or no legal expense. Here is the general idea of how this works. Here is a bunch of BS ,about how rich UGO will be by 2001 ;)
sign the contract, get your 2 months of pay, and then sue them. obviously, contract don't mean squat.
No kidding. I find it odd that a large portion of the crowd didn't see that immediately.
------
True. Locally to myself it would simply cause the gap to be continually filled by cars changing into it from other lanes. Nevertheless, I think that the legal theory used by the courts anyway.
BTW, this includes being backed into by someone if you are on a hill and their car rolls back a reasonably short distance into the front of yours.
The ontopic point being the law doesn't always have to seem sensible, since I'm NAL myself I'll add "at least to the layman".
I usually do a good job of maintaing "Assured Clear Distance" even during rush hour, and I never get people honking at me or glaring. What I do get, however, is a few waves from people who have been desperately waiting for a chance to switch lanes.
I've had the pleasure of being able to stop gradually enough to be the first person behind the chain-reaction collision who neither hit nor was hit from behind. Very satisfying!
The problem with signing this new contract is this:
.50, and inevitably, the NYPD).
You had a contract with them where they were going to pay you $x.
They say "Look, we've hit some turbulence, if you sign this new contract where you forfeit your rights to $x we will pay you $y (y x)."
Most of the responses here are saying "cut your losses, take $y, move on." The problem here is that there is no guarantee that you will get $y.
Let us say that you sign that contract, taking $y in exchange for not sueing them. As soon as you sign it, whats to stop them from saying, "Ok, last time this is going to happen, but you know the NASDAQ these days, if you promise not to sue us for $y, we will pay your right now $z (z y x).
So you could do one of three things:
1. Sue them right now. Upfront legal fees, no guarantee of ROI (if they go bankrupt before you settle, you paid the legal fees for nothing.)
2. Class action law suit. No legal fees, no guarantees on your money except that you know it wont be close to what you were originally owed.
3. Sign their new contract. Looks like the best option, but there is no guarantee that they will be able to uphold their end.
(whatever you do, do not go for the option involving their executives, a desert eagle
Troll Like a Champion Today
I am anything but a lawyer, and my solution is potentially libelous, but it a solution that protesters, Unions and consumers employ to publicly shame a contract-violator.
I say, abandon any hope of payment from UGO, and replace all the UGO ads in your ad rotation with lemon-ads, saying things like:
"I got screwed out of my ad contract with UGO"
or,
"UGO is doomed to go out of buisness in a few months, so don't even bother visiting their site"
or just
"UGO Sucks"
Remember, if you buy a car from a dealership, and it's a piece of crap, you have every right to park your car in front of the dealership with a big sign that says "I bought this car from xxx dealers, and IT SUCKS".
If I'm in a union, and my employeer violates my contract, the union has a right to strike and protest out front of the business with signs like "Marriot Hotel is Unfair and Violates the Contract".
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
I worked for a company which was a subsidiary [of sorts] of UGO. Well, after working for them for a while, I gave them a month or so of notice. A day or so before I left, I received this threatening letter basically saying that I agreed never to say anything negative about UGO and gave up my rights to sue them for practically any reason and that I agreed to pay any bills which they might have outstanding for me. Well...(@#*&#$ that! I basically told them that there was no way I was going to sign over my constitutionally protected right to state my opinion about them nor was I going to sign a blanket statement agreeing to pay for possible money their accounting department might decide that I owed them. I told them they could send me an itemized list of dues that I owed them and I would discuss those items with my accountant and that if they had some desire to sue me, they could notify my lawyer of their intent. I also told them that all further such correspondence should be sent via email rather than fax [as in, I don't have a fax!]. Their HR department tried to reach me by phone after that [to assure me the contract was harmless of course :-?]. After that sort of draconian gag attempt, I'll never deal with them again...
One of the reasons I've never bothered with ads on my sites is because one of a few reasons. 1) I feel its whoring myself, and a site shouldn't have to place ads on their site if their content is good (I push 2-4mill hits a month at times 700k-1mill unique) 2) Don't want ads which aren't themed in accordance to my content 3) companies are crooks.
So let me elaborate on number 3 since it may offend many people who do place ads. Trying to find a surefire method of advertising in these economic times are murder. With so many companies getting tossed, its only a matter of time before most of those "place a banner get paid companies" become completely extinct.
Their business models are often far fetched, marketed with obscurely written hidden agendas to those posting the ads, and there is really no legal measures you can take to defend yourself.
So lets see you place a banner from a company promising x amount of dollars per x amount of hits. Which means unless your pushing mega traffic its usually worthless to the average site. So you now believe you should take them to court, and now have to evaluate the math by doing that. Court costs for instances like this would be astronomical and often cost you more than you would get in return, not to mention drag on for years before you even get anything, PROVIDED, PROVIDED, that the company doesn't go under...
Wow thats a lot to expect to look forward to when dealing with these companies. Maybe some sites should promote advertising to companies on their own. Provide statistical information for their sites, via methods of logging, then promote the sites on their own. You cut out the middle man and the creating of your own banner generating script is not that hard.
Anyways I stay away from all that crap...
Want Root?
Understandable that many sites would need to pay for hosting, but this is something that should be thought of beforehand by the webmasters. My own site is a hobbyish site, and personally I would rather pay for my own (even though I have free hosting via a good friend) then pimp out with banners only to get shafted down the road.
Its one thing to create a site for your own purposes, then expect others to save your ass via way of advice on how to make money. As I stated if your content is that good, let the stats speak for themselves, post your stats, create your own terms for advertising for companies to look at, and I'm sure somewhere down the line you'll get play.
Listen, I get propositioned by companies involved in the security biz sometimes, and I decline most of their offers since they seem quirky. Show me the money, then we'll talk. If someone is dumb enough to fall for a takl for us, and we'll pay you later deal, then they deserve it. Rule number one in business there are no freebies, and no one is your friend. Once you learn to master that rule you'll be successful with all of the others.
Want Root?
My site doesn't charge anything since I don't expect anyone to "feed me." Good content for a site should be expected in order for a site to provide some banner ads to those who WANT to advertise on a site to make money. Some of these sites flat out suck (mines included) but that doesn't mean they can't make money on it. Provide strong content to keep stats up then provide advertising rates on your own, or as stated if you have good content your liable to get companies involved with the core of your content to want to pay you to advertise.
How many sites have you been to which target a specific kind of information, often have banner ads of odd companies (away from the sites core content) in rotation. By creating good enough content, keeping stats going a site would be able to determine how to get revenue whether its by banner advertising or product reviews, etc. Its really not that hard, most people are too fscking lazy and want everything handed to them on silver platters, and think by signing up with some "post a banner make some money" scheme is going to pay for the site which is ALWAYS and I repeat ALWAYS going to be a false assumption. The only person who'll win at that game is the company who suckered others into signing on with them, because they in turn, go back to possible clients with stats. Stats that I stated, if good enough should speak for themselves, and generate revenue for those who are smart enough to get their heads out of their asses and make their own rules for their own site.
As for me I don't need money to run my site. Its freely hosted by means only known to us involved with it, and what's the kicker about it, is we get a lot of attention for ourselves in our targeted market, so we get a lot of queries from companies questioning about services we may speak about, so we get to network with others for money, or we often get contract work via the site.
So as I said I'm fine running with my site the way it is, I think for the most part I provide semi good information, I keep people laughing while making them aware of certain situations, they would otherwise not hear of, and many people can take a quick look around and see we're not stupid when we're serious about something. We may act the stupid role, but most of us involved on my site have 7 years plus Unix administration, Network Engineering (CCNA), Security administration skills under our belts and make decent money, and can afford to keep it banner free.
Want Root?
Nobody is making money on them anymore. Cnet and other sites have resorted to giant flash ads in the middle of their content. I doubt anybody clicks on these either. Now is not a good time to make money on the internet, unless you are actually selling a product to your web site viewers. Basically, I wouldnt sue these UGO guys. They obviously are out of money and will probably die off soon.
I had something similar happen when I was working for a company (not the one I am presently working for). The only difference was it was the company tell me if I didn't sign I wouldn't get the money. Our parent company had gone through two rounds of layoffs, and the final manager of our company got our parent company to agree to a contract stating if the laid off any (or all) of the remaining employees with a year or two, the company would be required to give us X months severence pay.
Needless to say, they eventually let us go. Before I could get the severence check they were obligated to give me under the contract, I had to singn a similar agreement stating I would not sue the company. I wouldn't make any money sueing so I signed.
If thy are doing this to your website, look for space elsewhere! This is NOT good news for this company. You are better off finding a better sight. It sounds like the company is running out of money, and you don't want to be stuck when they go under and somehting happens to the content of your website.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Coward,
No where in the article does it say the are an
ad company. Either way, what I said still stands. Don't stick with them, and read the contract carefully. Their actions are the type of actions a company takes who is about to go under, or is trying to stop from going under.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
If you are an affiliate and want your money (all of your money...), you may want to have a closer look at this comment and remind the officers of the company that their conduct may expose them to personal liability.
Say no to software patents.
I would avoid signing anything without representation. If this was really sent to all of their customers, many who will be small, or like you unable/unwilling to go to court, organize. Contact a lawyer, explain the situation, and see if they are willing to contact others on behalf of some combination suit.
Most important, I would avoid taking any legal advice from here. Even if I was a lawyer (I am not), nothing says I am a good one or even know what I am talking about.
If you don't sue, they will do it again, if you cave, then they are rewarded for the behavior.
.50 on the dollar, you get nothing with the new contract.
The are already in breach of contract, and after the first of you goes after them, then the rest will get in line with you for the money.
So you will only get
A.G. Russell IV Extreme Internet Solutions The wonderful thing about standards . there are so many to choose from! "W
The real answer depends on what you want in the end.
If you are looking to maximize your cash intake then just take what you can get now. IANAL but my rough thoughts on the amount of money you get work out this way:
1- you take the money offered - you end up with 50% of what is owed
2- you sue - most lawyers are probably going to take 1/3 of the settlement, plus there are court costs, your time and agravation, the chance that by the time the courts hear your case there is a company left to sue or they have any money left to take. if you're lucky you may end up getting a little more than the 50% they offered, you may end up getting less or nothing at all and you spent alot of effort to get it.
of course if you are looking for satisfaction and the cash is not a big factor then sue the bastards and make life tough for them.
I got burned for a few weeks pay by a consulting client last year and they never answered my attorney's attempts to collect so I referred them to ComLawNet.
Try their handy online claim submission form. You will need to agree to their agreement.
They seem to have a certain... familiarity... with dot-coms.
Read their FAQ. Note that they emphasize your chances of collecting are much greater the earlier the debt is placed into collections.
I'm still waiting for my money but I only placed them into collections a couple weeks ago.
Mike
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
It sounds to me like they're basically saying "We'd like to offer you two choices. Either take these last 2 payments we owe you and call it a done deal, or fight with us in court about it." They're betting you don't want to bother with the court battle.
It's completely up to you. You'd have a good case, except you can't get money from someone who has none. Go talk to an attorney who can investigate this place and find out if a suit is worthwhile. I don't think any Slashdot readers can give you better information than that, unless maybe they work for the place themselves.
Heh heh heh. I'd refuse to ever live in Boston (or just about any other city on the east coast for that matter). I flew into there for my honeymoon, but fortunately in the middle of the night so I missed the traffic. It's bad enough here in the Midwest!
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Constitutionally Correct
Yes. Most of those people are thus following too closely.
I don't know how many times I've been driving at a 2 second distance and some idiot will cut in on me. Sometimes (like on city streets) that 2 seconds is barely enough room for his vehicle. And they'll cut in without signalling. Leaving both of us with less than 1 second of distance.
That's the cause of most of my road rage...idiocy on the part of other drivers. People like that shouldn't even be on the road. They're endangering everyone.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Constitutionally Correct
They say these things because stock investors are largely a bunch of stupid fucking morons, who could not possibly add 1 and 1 and get 2. They need hype and to have key buzzwords repeated over and over.
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
To be a binding contract, however, something of value must be given in return for this release - in this case, it's the two months worth of payments that are already due to the website.
That doesn't sound like substantial value at all, so as a contract, this sounds fishy. It would certainly make sense to go court and try to get an injunction against UGO to stop this nonsense. Saying that you've got two months worth of dues that you haven't paid yet, then saying that you'll only pay them to those sites that waive their right to sue for what should rightfully be theirs anyway doesn't sound right.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
A lot of this depends on what the contract is committing you to. As long as you're not in some sort of exclusive relationship with UGO, I'd sign the contract, get whatever I could out of UGO, and then ditch them.
If you are on some sort of exclusive deal, refuse the money and the contract and ditch UGO immediately for being in breach of contract.
in Ca (and other states) if 2 or more creditors file petitions to US bankruptcy court against the same company within some predefined time period (30 days - I think). The company is automatically put into bankruptcy - involuntarily. Of course - this manuever will only serve to shut the bastards down - you still arent likely to see your money.....oh - and you will need a lawyer - could cost more than 20K to shut them down. Play the cards as they are dealt :)
I'm always amazed by the number of people who want legal advice from a public forum. Would you take a particle physics problem to a mechanic? Talk to someone who actually knows the legal system.
-Legion
IANAL but IMHO the best way to handle this is reject the settlement, find a new sponsor/advertiser and factor the debt to an expert recovery company. These will Charge you about 12% off the top.
maybe I should... There I was, going 5mph, maybe not paying as much attention as I should have been, when someone got impatient & just turned in front of the car in front of me. So he of course stopped. I slammed on my brakes, but they sucked at the time, and I tapped the back of his truck. To make a long story short, he looked at his truck, saw no damage, and said, "okay, no problem.. I'm willing to drop it if you're willing to drop it." At that instant the "cop who would ticket his own grandmother" (as I later learned from someone else on the force) pulled into the parking lot we were in.
but since I was driving to fast, endangering people's lives lives, and a speeding ticket for 5 in 25mph was cleary warrented (and an appropriate application of the law to boot), I guess there's no sympathy for me.
---
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
28-701. Reasonable and prudent speed; prima facie evidence; exceptions
A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others.
this is what I was written up for. Nowhere does it say anything about "following too close." I don't see how a third party can walk up to two vehicles parked on the side of the road, one with damage, the other without, talk to the people involved and conclude that one person's speed was not "in compliance with legal requirements", and that I wasn't "exercising reasonable care for the protection of others". If the law said "don't cause a collision" or "follow at a distance such that you can stop at any time without hitting the vehicle in front of you", I wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. I recognize that I caused the accident, and if there had been any damage to his truck I would've taken responsibility for it. There was no justification, aside from a profiteering police department, for issuing a ticket in my case. Paying to fix the damage to my car was punishment enough, as someone else pointed out, sometimes things that you never expect to happen will, and an _accident_ will happen... No reason to doubly screw the person over, what with insurance premiums the way they are.
---
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
you may read all of 28-701 here. I was accused of violating section A. My brakes were not pathetic, all I needed was another six inches & I wouldn't have had anything to post on /. about. The point is that one cannot make a decision on a case without having seen it first hand.
furthermore, I find it sadening that you think "the officer was justified in giving [me] a ticket." (sadening in a "shake your head & wonder what's gotten into people's minds these days that they think 'that's what governments are supposed to do'" kinda way, or something). What business of his is it to involve himself in other people's affairs? How does he "make the streets safer" by giving out tickets for extremely minor issues? I'm not much the wordsmith, so I can't quite communicate the point I'd like to get across very clearly... The "specific ticket" he gave me was not appropriate. Do you charge a shoplifter with murder? didn't think so.
---
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
this was over three years ago, so it's just something to tell people about, and to file away in my library of experience. Funny story about when I did fight it though: On the day of my "trial" (hearing, whatever), I showed up in the courtroom ('cause that's where you're supposed to go when you go to court, right? :), where they were conducting a 'trial by judge' for a guy who'd stolen a $2 watch from Target. The bailiff says to me, "uhm, the prosecutor said this was his last case today." I'm like "wtf?", and walk outside the courtroom to find "my cop" and a judge out in the hallway wondering where I was. Anyways, the courtroom's taken, so we go into a janitorial closet, where they have a table & three chairs set up. (that's the honest-to-god truth, I distinctly remember yellow "caution wet floor" signs off in the corner). I tell my story, the "judge" says, "I don't think you can interpret the law that way, son." (read: gotta teach you a lesson boy, pay up). So I appeal to the superior court, and almost a year later, I show up 15 minutes late to my new "trial". :(. But the superior court kept the paperwork for another 2 years, so the points had nearly expired by the time they finally got reported to the DMV.
---
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
>What did you do to resolve this kind of problem?
I guess you get an article posted on Slashdot slandering them all over about their tactics to get even.
Being a member of the BlaBla network, I was quite disappointed in this. Sure, I get no money from blabla, but my host is really very generous (read: I pay for my IP addy and thats about it). The only thing I got from them was increased traffic. Now that it has been swallowed by UGO, my site and many of the other smaller sites passed up by UGO previously will be lost in the shuffle.
Joe McGuire
tinfoil.music
tinfoilmedia
Lets say I owed someone money for a house or a car I bought. If I was to run into hard times, say I took a nasty paycut or something, would it be an excuse to have the amount of my loan reduced? Heck no! I made an agreement with the second party or parties that I would pay them back X dollars, and X dollars is what I owe them. Just because I've hit hard times doesn't mean I shouldn't live up to my responsibility. Somone said in an above post that they bought out blah blah blah ad network. If this is true, then what they are doing amounts to pure greed. They're trying to have it all, at their customer's expense. This should be tried criminally under breech of contract laws as far as I'm concerned, if they're going belly up then they should just come out and declare they're dead in the water and bankrupt then try to fullfill the obligations to their customers.
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
It'd be one thing if they said "all bets are off, here's your last two month's payment. We'll give you another months payment if you agree not to sue us", They'd still be breaching their contract, but It's much more acceptable (to site admins as wells as courts, most likely). I think this is open and shut if you can get a lawyer to represent you. Unfourtunately, for most of these sites, that might not be feasable.
This seems like extortion to me. Is it legal to force someone to sign a contract in order to get what is already legally theirs? I assume that all of the webmasters had signed an initial contract with their percentage of revenue and whatnot.
Kent
... and there is reason for him not to take that offer. As long as they stay in business, they have no chance to avoid paying their debt in the long run.
And it is shady business practice, BTW. Nothing "normal"
f.
the guy has a contract
he's asked now to sign something
if he doesn sign they threaten him to withhold payment they already owe
Thats the core of the issue. The rest is bull. They may be however right and senible with their new contract as they like - the existing runs until terminated and has to be fulfilled.
Their correct course of action would be:
terminate all old contracts
offer everyone the new contract after the old one has run out
pay everyone the money he's owed.
Apparently they don't. So he should make sure he gets his money. 'Nuff said.
f.
The interesting thing about trickle down economics is it's a two way street. The root of the problem is UGO isn't getting paid, so they aren't paying anyone else. You're basically between a rock and a hardplace on the issue. If they go belly up, which it sounds like they will anyway, game over. Even with the rewriting of the bankruptcy laws, it only ensures Large Companies can collect from Joe Public, not the other way around.
The larger issue at hand is the total collapse of Banner Marketing. Click Through is too low, too many Dot Coms are going under and not paying the ad companies. Good sites get screwed over. The use of banner ads were a neat way for a grass roots site to start and actually break ever (or make a profit.) Until that point you had to depend on a getting venture capital and a marketing department.
I feel bad for all parties concerned, but UGO is a dead end street. I doubt any lawyer would take it on contingency.
The best route to go is to replace the ad revenue and quick. In house, a different network, co-op deals with online retailers.
There I was, going 5mph, maybe not paying as much attention as I should have been, when someone got impatient & just turned in front of the car in front of me. So he of course stopped. I slammed on my brakes, but they sucked at the time, and I tapped the back of his truck.
From your description, the officer was justified in giving you a ticket. The specific ticket he gave you may not have been quite appropriate; I won't say without seeing the entire law, not the snippet you posted (if there's a clause A, I assume there's a B to follow...). It's reckless to be driving a car with brakes so pathetic that you can't stop at 5 mph or to be paying so little attention that you can't. You caused no damages or injuries, but in other circumstances you would have. Damn straight you weren't "exercising reasonable care for the protection of others." I have no sympathy.
Anyway, the company I work for is being stiffed for a fairly large some of cash (large enough that I probably won't be getting a much deserved raise out of my now 3 weeks late revue) for some prototypes we built for another company. The situation currently is that if they don't pay up by Friday we get to go over there with a big truck and take stuff.
Now for the advice, sue them. They are obviously in breach of contract and a lawsuit will likely award you some assets. "Assets" doesn't have to mean cash. It can also mean furniture, computers, company cars, basically anything that is owned by the company. If UGO is typical of the .coms I've seen, they have some sweet stuff that could be yours...
‹homer simpson›Mmmm... High res micro-mirror projector...‹/homer simpson›
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Bottom line is that the company signed into a binding contract and they SHOULD NOT be let out of that contract. If you can't do business the way you promised you shouldn't do business at all. Stealing services from someone else is wrong and should be procecuted.
The unfortunate bit in all of this is even if you win the lawsuit the chances of you getting any money are slim because it sounds like the company doesn't have any. I'd say sue them (nearly any lawyer should be able to win this case for you if the facts are as clear cut as you say though IANAL) and find a different means for revenue on your site.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Even if your creditor goes bankrupt, you'll probably collect something. And you may be able to force them into bankruptcy before they totally run out of cash, so it's better to start sooner rather than later.
As a rule of thumb, never let a commercial creditor get more than 60 days behind. The probability of payment declines rapidly after that point.
If they can not pay their creditors you can force them into bankruptcy, but don't. Threaten to force them into bankruptcy unless they pay you in full. Yes, this is reverse extortion, have your lawyer do it. It will only work if they believe you are serious and they are still trying to delay bankruptcy. It happens in many bankruptcys before the inevitable happens anyways. Do not sign anything until you have talked to a lawyer. db
Whoa! I'm gonna try this tactic out on my bank! Ca-ching!
I know more than you drink.
If anything these these sites need to band together to put a stop to the abuse foisted upon them.
Or do what I've been suggesting for months now: band together and start their own ad network, under their own control.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Your Honor, my client could never have commited the murders of which he is accused. My client is a peaceful man. He loves families and children, like, for example, your children, who currently go to school at 123 Maple Street.... Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, as you know, I cannot legally offer you large cash kickbacks in exchange for finding my client innocent. However, I'd like you all to take a moment to address the stamped, sealed envelopes to yourselves....
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Mozilla (and therefore NS6.x) has the ability to supress popups as well. I don't think there is a UI to set this option, but you can edit the prefs.js to enable it.
That could be why an increasing (and increasingly desperate) number of sites have taken to displaying popup windows instead. Unluckily for them people will ignore these too and become alienated from the site in the process. I already unconciously close popups before they've even finished loading.
You need to get in touch with Tony Soprano.
Ret. add. is really fake....
. .
I live in the UK.
Been there, done that.
Six months to a central London hearing during which time assets stripped.
Unless, that is you can file in the High Court, apply for an Interlocutory (preliminary) Injunction for freeze of assets bason on previous form.
Any amount >750 GBP does the job here, but you _have_ to avoid the small claims process.
Also, take note, if these guys are skulduggerous (man, I like that word and haven't used it much ;-) they'll find a counterclaim, apply to court to have the cases combined (which in one case I've worked with so confused the Plaintiff that she - and I say here I say this only after the fact - allowed a settlement to be made citing the *wrong* counterparty, making enforcement very difficult) and then, under Fast Track rules, you'll be forced to do twice the work to attack the core issues, as it complicates the issue before the Magistrates or Judges or whoever on account the opportunity offered under the counterclaim to besmirch you as well.
Also, there is the overriding concept in UK law of "Balance Convenience" whereunder you will have to prove that a bankruptcy order is *the only* way to recover your monies. Otherwise a simple order will be made for payment. Then you have to wait six months before you can get a Sherrifs Order to send out Bailiffs.
Believe you me, find other ways if you can to get your dues. See my other post. - John
You may then strike out under Statutory Provisions any clause which is "unfair" without varying any other right.
Allowed our company to tell any number of a%%hole cell / isp companies to go ram when they "fixed" the terms suddenly.
For more reading, go look up Law of Equity in the library, I'm not saying Google will have much, even allowing my audience :) - John
By induction, if they are offering a very one sided contract it is becasue they want to stay in business.
If they cannot _ unless you sign, then they have problems you can make painful for them, see my other post.
So if they are planning to be able to stay in business, they can in due course pay you. Just - apparently (though I don't trust this without further information) - not now.
You may personally feel it is not their fault. But the law offers people who start a business a limitation of personal liability, privided you follow the rules (also see my post above) in return for the responsibility those rules and other aspects of the law convey upon them.
I have studied many systems in collapse, from social, psychological and quanitive persectives. What we *need* in this world of capitalism is a sense of pay - back for those who enter into business frivolously or without honour. You may disagree with my ancient point of view, but to "blame the system" is a cop - out, and more people, good bad, indifferent as well as intentionally fraudulent will just be encouraged to try their hand without any conscience about the matter if we all exonerate every failure that tries to screw upon their *customers* the minute they encounter a little trouble. Damn it, I have to go home now, but I _really_ wished I had the time here to rant from the perspective my several very painful (financially, emotionally and every which way) experiences with sharp operators in business. - John.
p.s. my company trades advertising contracts in Europe, if your site is interested in non - exclusive agreements for wholesale onward sales, contact me intially via my spam account above. We have a good legal team, too.
. .
IANAL, but I handle all our company's contracts in the UK and USA.
Look carefully at the pattern of earnings and balance sheet reporting that UGO has made during recent fiscal periods.
This may not be formally reported or up to date. In the UK there is Comapnies House, to which Directors (but, interestingly, not the companies) are obliged to file annual accounts and shareholder information).
In the USA you will have to look at individual State Registrars, unless UGO is under SEC rules to file federally because of number of shareholders, public offers or listings.
Get *every* piece of detail you can about the INDIVIDUALS who run the business.
Companies in common law, USA and UK are Legal Persons, intentionally separated from their officers, in both countries (in the UK Companies Act, and once again your local state law) there is the concept of PERSONAL LIABILITY of officers and directors in the event they operate the company KNOWING IT CANNOT FINANCIALLY SURVIVE.
This *is* a complex affair.
But you may be in a position to apply pressure to obtain needed severances from contracts, so that you can do business elsewhere.
Or you may want to try to negotiate a settlement from any cash reserves still remaining.
You may yet be a creditor in the event UGO becomes insolvent or files Chapter 11.
I know you said a lawsuit may be futile. I am not advising on that (though these steps would be prepared by a good forensic accountant's legal team) but I *am* suggesting you get what info you can to apply LEVERAGE upon the officers, directors or whoever is responsible.
If you feel you can follow these steps and also read your local legal codes, _and_ provided you treat this in a resonably detached manner (I learned many skills years ago when such an investigation became a personally charged affair because my business was very hurt, but I still don't recommend the vendetta, you're smart enough to see the reasons for that) then you can at the very least feel as if your own intelligence can apply to the awful and unpleasant situation you are in. This aspect alone, for anyone bright enough to have managed their own business, gives a certain amount of better sleep and can reduce personal bitterness and sense of hopelessness. In fact many fraudsters OPERATEON THE BASIS that it is a common perception that legal recourse is hopeless. Legal recourse does not mean you have to go to court. The vast majority of serious cases are settled between big companies.
If you find a basis for argument that the directors or officers of the company have operated and ENCOURAGED NEW BUSINESS in the knowledge that their financial models are unsustainable, and / or they are broke, they may fall foul of insolvency rules, and in the UK I can say for certain I would immediately file suit for fraud against the INDIVIDUALS THEMSELVES. In the UK companies law makes it a CRIMINAL offence to operate a company when you know it can't meet its bills. Check your local State Codes for the equivalents WHERE THE COMPANY IS DOMICILED AND OR LOCATED...
Finally, for this post at least, WRITE UP what you find, quoting law and precendence wherever you can, and copy it to officers _home_ addresses, circulate to investors and advisors (who may also legally be culpable in some circumstances) and think seriously about putting a release across PRWire or another news service which gets picked up by the mainstream press. If the likelihood of fraud is widespread, and key officers of UGO have personal assets, you may find a specialist attorney calling you offering a deal to pursue in return for a reasonable commission. In other words, get in position to have your pound of flesh back, _as well as_ what is already legally due to you, and you may suddenly find yourself treated *much* more fairly.
I could comment further on contract law, too. But if you want to ask me anything write my spam account above with a very clear header, and I'll write back from my main a/c with some further pointers when I'm in less of a hurry. (only pointers, mind).
Whatever you do, my very best luck to you. - John
They're circling the toilet. Take what you can get and dump em! Run, don't walk, with the check to their bank if possible to get cash.
If you sue, you *Might* get your money, but it's not worth it. The legal fees will only further harm an already cash strapped business model. You might get your money now, but you'll bring down the 10 sites they sponsor with it.
Remember these ad based companies are starving, they don't have much cash on hand at all. This is a very drastic decision for them and they wouldn't be doing it if it wasnt an absolute necessity.
My advice is take the lower money and be happy you're getting anything at all. This is a very rough time for banner ad companies
Many states have an anti-SLAPP statute.
Fight Spammers!
For more information on SLAPP and anti-SLAPP you can go to www.casp.net.
Fight Spammers!
Many times, if a company goes under, the people in charge grab money for themselves -- so if you can piece the corporate veil, it's yours. Many companies have insurance that covers bad acts by management, if you can get that, you avoid issues of bankruptcy.
Fight Spammers!
Fight Spammers!
If nobody does, and opts for the money right away, then doing web business will instantly get a lot tougher.
Besides, if you sign this paper, is there a guarantee that they'll give you any money?
for the usual "Chet from OMM" bitch about how "banner adds rock", and the cuase of thier cashflow problems are becuase people block ad.*.com
Read this thourogly and take the cop to court. That's what I would do. But I'm not a lawyer, so YMMV. Oh, and that is Canadian, but I wouldn't be surprised if much of that is still good advice in the US (just apply your local laws instead of the Canadian ones). Although I wouldn't trust Canadian technicalities being valid in the US.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
My personal favourite, which happens ALL the time. I mean almost everyday for me (well, not that often, but this really isn't contrived at all):
:-)
You're on the highway. You have 4 seconds (more than enough) distance between you and the car infront. The 18 wheeler behind you leaves 1/2 second distance between you and him. A car uses your 4 seconds to cut in front of you. A tanker truck decides to follow you in your only "escape" lane. As with many highways, there's no shoulder, just concrete barriers. Now you have two choices: Slow down and have the 18 wheeler demolish your car, or continue with almost no stopping distance for the next mile decellerating by 1 or maybe 2 mph/h (that truck ain't gonna slow much more).
What do you choose? Conciously cause a collision between yourself and the truck (which, if you know it will happen, and cause it to happen, IS your fault, at least morally, and probably legally if you manage to hurt the truck driver or your passengers); or risk a lesser accident with the car infront (again, your fault)?
I'd love to see an answer to this.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
This does sound like an ideal case for a class-action lawsuit--unless, of course, if UGO is going belly up you're all going to get a rather paltry sized settlement, but it'd be better than buckling under.
Waitasec... They can't even afford to pay their own affiliates!!! How the hell are they supposed to have the money to buy another company?!!?!?! Look here for more info on the vile UGO network.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Well, we all view the world to conform to our own realities, I guess...
Dear Anonymous Coward,
Sometimes, in real life, people are confronted with situations where they don't know what to do. In such situations, they generally seek out the advice of their peers and colleagues, people that perhaps have been in similar situations, before making a decision that could possibly affect the rest of their lives. It's called getting as much information as possible, and doing everything within their power to make an informed, wise decision.
I know this is probably difficult for you to comprehend, since you were apparently born with the sum total of all human knowledge, but try to understand that this is very helpful for the rest of us.
I've seen everyone recommend against taking UGO to court because A) legal fees are high and B) you won't see your money. But I don't think thats the point. Your whole point should be to put UGO out of business and prevent them from screwing less-informed websites. A class action suit would do nicely, or perhaps the collection agency someone mentioned. At any rate, its a simple matter of breech of contract. And if they can't afford to pay you, they can't afford to fight in court either.
//m
take the 2 months $.
I'm betting the boys at the TOP of the UGO corporate structure have already bailed. This 2 months offer is a pittiful attempt by underlings to be fair before their boat sinks.
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
you've obviously never had to sue anybody before. it takes YEARS to collect in some cases. all the judge says is "I agree with you, he owes you the money". NOW, it is up to YOU to collect it. and you may have to keep going back to court to tell the judge, "Your honor, he's not paying up". judge says "pay the man", three months later you go back to court and say "Your honor, he's not paying up", guess what the judge say? you got it, "pay the man". 3 months later you go back to court......are u getting the picture here? and meanwhile, every trip to court costs YOU money.
I'm good with numbers -
...and I don't live in USA...
...but I'd normally file a bankrupcy (they owe me money, I can prove it, they don't pay it, last I checked that ment they are bankrupt) and ask the court to immidiatly seize funds and/or assets to cover the money owned so all is not lost, even a dot.com usually has something worthwhile.
Besides, that usually provokes some rapid action from the counterpart, unless they're really going bankrupt, in which case you'll probably lose the money anyway, so the earlier you try, the more likely there'll actually be something to get.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Even though they technically owe the money to you, they are holding it as leverage. You need to check with a lawyer but the new contract you sign might not be enforcable--that is, a contract can only be considered valid if you both parties receive something or some benefit. In this case, since they already owe you the money, you are not receiving anything and you are giving up a great deal.
IANAL, etc.
Frylock: That's not a toy!
Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
I have read several informative comments/recommendations but I think they are contingent on several factors:
1. What range of payment due are we talking about? If it's a low sum of money, there is no way you are going to be able to hire a lawyer.
2. Would you ever really want to do business again with a company that cannot make payments, is 2 months behind, and is attempting to rewrite its contract?
3. How long do you really anticipate this company staying afloat if it is already admitting to money flow problems?
I would take my money and run. You are lucky even you even get that....
http://www.ugo.com/services/about/mediakit/coinfo_ exec.asp
The contact infomation is here:
http://www.ugo.com/services/about/mediakit/ contact .asp
with telephone, fax, and email.
Someone may want to save the data someplace, just in case. These guys sound a bit unpleasant, but I'm sure they are fine at a party.
[right ...]
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The best advice I think is to take the 1/2 and write off the rest as a bad debt / business loss. You'll likely end up with a minimum of 62.5% of the total money owed (depending on your tax situation you could get more). If you go the lawyer route, you will get no more than 66.7% of the amount owed.
Is the 4.2% extra you get worth the lawsuit? Especially considering the amount of work you will have to put in and time you will have to wait? And considering the risk that if the company goes belly-up before your case is settled you will probably get nothing...
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
However, provided you're willing to consider legal action, you might be able to get away with having your cake and eating it too, by signing the contract and then arguing that the contract was valid. In addition to the obvious extortion, it's my understanding that, to be valid, a contract must provide consideration to both parties.
The example I recall from my business law class involved a rich uncle signing a contract with his nephew, where his nephew agreed not to engage in various illegal behavior and the uncle would provide the nephew with a bunch of money after a set amount of time. Because the behavior of the nephew fit within what he was already required to do by law, he wasn't really doing anything for his part of the contract. As such, the contract was declared void. Since UGO is already contractually obligated to pay you this money, they aren't providing you with any considerations in this contract. Of course, this would be contingent on the details on the contract (for example, it might provide some small additional benefit to you that wasn't mentioned in the summary, thus negating this whole argument). All in all, the obvious IANAL disclaimers apply, but it might be something worth thinking about and asking a lawyer about.
and HardOCP if it goes down, they never offered anything substantial and on top of that their reviews are... well they aren't. It's like me describing my walk to the mailbox.
I hope the other sites survive though, VE, sugashack, and telefragged offered a lot throughout the community.
When death looks you in the eye, smile. Someone needs to cheer him up.
Not necessarily. Traffic often behaves in non-intuitive ways--there are cases where traffic patterns in major cities have been improved by closing streets.
I usually do a good job of maintaing "Assured Clear Distance" even during rush hour, and I never get people honking at me or glaring. What I do get, however, is a few waves from people who have been desperately waiting for a chance to switch lanes.
But I think a lawsuit is what's needed here. I would first contact other webmasters in the same situation and see what they say. Also, if you can get them on your bandwagon (whatever you decide) and present a united front of all of you, that should provide greater impact. Just don't go it alone.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
Gee, I guess maybe you better think twice before signing it. I'd tell them to shove the contract up their ass, then turn around and sue them for what they owe you and for breach of contract. Then I'd go hunting for a new business partner. Good luck.
The only way they can prevent you from seizing their assets is if they file for bankruptcy. Which, it sounds as though they'll probably do that soon. But don't sign something amounting to a forgiveness of all future debts. Hold them to the contract you already have with them. And if they go out of business, well that's business.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Check to see if the amount they owe you is under the limit for small claims court in the state of the contract. In California I believe it's around $5000.
IANAL, of course, and thankfully I've never brought someone to small claims, but it exists for this type of situation.
-John
Even if you won, they'll be bankrupt soon, and you'll be lucky if you collect 10 cents on the dollar.
Invest your time in finding some other way to keep your site going instead. Live and learn.
someone please mod this up funny....
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
It is possible they are an idiot. It is also possible that they are an idealist.
Zero Sum (don't amount to much). [root@localhost]
I don't know if this is legally relevant or not, but UGO continues their ad campaign of sticking up little "Underground Online" stickers on every streetpole, newspaper dispenser, etc., at least as late as last Friday (May 11th). FWIW.
I hate bringing up the evil M-word (money) but it's needed to support sites...
However, the contract is pretty weak and could be voided in a class action. Question is where else to go? I dont know of any place else to go for ad outsourcing. As much as we all hate it we need to make some money just to pay for the basics of our sites. Free hosting just doesnt offer enough (ie MySQL, specific Apache changes, etc, etc, etc) and hosting and bandwidth arent cheap.
Before we all leap off the cliff and sue them into non-existance maybe we should have somewhere to land....
There was an article on here awhile back about improved advertising. Dont suppose anyone's done anything with it or thought about forming a co-op for sites too big to be on free hosting and too small to afford our own ad sales staff?
Anyone interested in such a thing? How'd we go about getting startup capital in the current market?
I suppose it'd be a bit much to get OSDN to sponsor the co-op...
Personally, I never got a chance to get rooked by UGO
The time of making money from banner ads is not over. I make a good living off of the banner ads that are placed on my technical website. I'm going to have to raise prices because demand is so high. And all I have on my website is free information, I don't sell anything (other than banner ads!). I spend my time preparing content for a new technical website that I'm creating and that I expect will be even more successful and generate more income than my current site... and so it goes--and all based on banner ad revenue. I love being self-employed!
What probably is over is entire companies being supported by the ad revenues from their websites. I make a nice living off my website. The site wouldn't, however, be able to support an entire company.
I charge a "per view" (CPM) rate less than Yahoo even though, being a focused technical site, I would be warranted in charging four times what I do. But everything I charge is for me; I don't have to share the proceeds with anyone. This means I can give my advertisers an incredibly good price and I still make money. Everyone wins.
Banner ads should be discrete (at the top or bottom of the pages--not in the middle of the content) and not take too long to load. They ought to be related to the content of the site, too.
What I am totally against is sites that now put huge banner ads on their site (they look silly and take up too much real-estate) or those sites that open up their ads in new browser windows. Weather.com now has normal banner ads on their site AND opens a banner in a new window. For that reason, I now get my weather only from CNN.COM and Yahoo.com.
... Apparently they think by creating more and more large and annoying banner ads they can generate more revenue--more likely they'll just drive people away to other sites and they'll make less. Duh.
Remember the whole eFront fiasco from a few months ago? Well, eFront did the same thing as UGO is trying to do: in order for webmasters to get back to their domain names, they had to forfeit 5 months of backpay, and agree not to sue eFront at any time in the future. As far as I know, a lot of webmasters agreed and signed the contract in order just to get their domains back quickly, as one weekend eFront blocked out all webmasters from updating their sites for "security reasons".
Looks like UGO is on it's way to becoming a member of Pud's list...oh wait, nevermind...Pud has an article that UGO just bought Bla-Bla!. Sheesh! Rough times indeed...
Contracts signed under duress are NOT VALID. Threatening the withholding of payment due is a type of duress. Take the money then sue their A**** off.
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
Say what you want, but the fact is - if you hit someone in the rear, it's your fault, unless their brake lights are out, in which case you may get off. Otherwise, you were following too close/going too fast - and you're the one responsible.
The person in front can't be expected to anticipate every stupid person driving behind them, just those in front.
UGO just bought out Bla-Bla, another troubled web advertising network.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
They're holding back payments because they're trying to save Gary Coleman. Once Mr. Coleman's debt is handled, it'll be business as usual.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
...and bail out...
I agree, but for something like this, it is *obvious* that you should speak to a lawyer right away.
nah, it's just that colliding with a car from the rear is not conclusive evidence that it's your fault, police procedure notwithstanding.
Oh, come on...I don't see every car on the freeway maintaining a two-second distance from the car in front of them. If such a fanciful thing ever did happen, it would make hour-long traffic jams into day-long traffic jams.
Your post was the most cold, heartless, straight-to-the-point slapdown on a dotcom business model I've read in many years.
Keep up the good work.
Virg
Yeah, and what better place to go for legal advice than Slashdot, where the average poster is a 12 year old pimply-faced geek spanking in his dark room while trying to get his Linux box to play Quake 3 faster. Right. First place I'd go.
Heh, always thought the UGO logo looks like a fascist symbol... :)
I guess we all now know where they got the idea for that logo
Now, I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but if they're going down, and they're taking you down as well, you might as well sue them out of existence.
:^>]
I had to take a similar course of action with a certain cynaptec.com
They had to change their name, but even that didn't save them (page is still up, but they had to move out of that cozy office, heheheheh)
BTW, their server is FULL of security holes! [I'm not advocating hacking them, just suggesting it
Oh, I might add that their little extortion note is in no way legally binding, at least here in Massachusetts. (Cynaptec sent me one of those as well, heheheheh)
I'm done with sigs. Sigs are lame.
IANAL. Have you asked to see their books? I wouldn't sign anything until they proove how bad their trouble is.
If they are going broke, what is the point of these tatics? They should just close the doors.
If they are NOT on the verge of going broke. You want ALL your money.
If it could go either way, bankrupcy should provide you with something.
I doubt they are doing this to be nice.
When VPNs are outlawed, only outlaws have VPNs.
Don't go the class action lawsuit route... Why do you want to share your winnings with other webmasters that aren't smart enough to do it on their own. What you do is quietly get a lawyer, draw up an lawsuit suing them for millions, then settle for 3-4x what they owe you... This way you end up with a check in the amount that UGO owes you, and everyone else gets nothing (because there is no money left) Now if you go the class action route, lawyer gets 1/2, and the rest of you split a pool of diminishing money. I also would pay the lawyer upfront rather than on contengency, you get better work, and you get to keep your winnings
so now you know why!
Bunch of dummies, for the last two quarters advertising companies are demanding cash up front for producing content/ads for web companies. A lot of other companies demand the same from any web based enterprise.
Why do web based enterprises think they are immune from the same treatment? Just because your both web based doesn't mean you have some secret handshake protecting you.
You would have thought the guys at VE would have learned by now.
Suggestion, get all these sites together and file a single lawsuit. In the meantime don't run their ads
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Unfortunately even if they take the cash they are in the same boat. They don't have the clout to demand payment up front, and they probably never will.
? tag=nbs
If anything these these sites need to band together to put a stop to the abuse foisted upon them.
I am quite sure the executives at UGO are highly paid, and protected if they should be let go. Its crap like Webvan's recent settlement with their EX-CEO that show who really benefits on the web, http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-5940466.html
Hopefully they will piss off a site that has connections, and get their ass handed to them legally.
Until then, fan sites will continually be screwed. The net isn't free, and if we want good sites we are going to eventually have to pay (even if its micropayments - I would not mind paying a few cents per day to these sites for their content)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
If they're contractually obligated to send you the money, I'd suggest that you find a lawyer who'll work on contingency for a portion of the proceeds, and sue them. They're bascially telling you that unless you let them rewrite the contract, they'll break it anyway. That's wrong, and even if it won't net you much cash, there's no reason to let them think they can screw people like that.
I mean, it's one thing for them to want to rewrite the terms of the contract going forward, but this is bullshit - they're attempting to dodge obligations they've made. Such arrogance should not be tolerated. If they can't meet their financial obligations, let the bastards file for bankruptcy like everyone else.
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
UGO PRESS RELEASES
UGO Networks Raises $13 Million; Closes A New Round of Funding with $23 million
New Proceeds will be Used to Grow its Technology Business and Develop Advertising Sponsorships Packages
New York, NY March 5th, 2001 - UGO Networks, a leading entertainment company for 18-34 year old males, announced today that it raised $13 million dollars, closing a new round of funding with a total of $23 million. Lead Investors are GRP and Missouri-based Gryphon Holdings II, LLP Inc. and their investment partners. UGO Networks has raised in total $80 million. UGO Networks consists of UnderGroundOnline (www.ugo.com), a network comprised of 350 affiliated sites which feature content in animation, music, games, wrestling, technology, TV & film, celebrities and UGO Networks Technology Solutions, which provides Web hosting and other professional services to UnderGroundOnline affiliates, strategic partners, and third parties. Board members include Strauss Zelnick, Former President and CEO of BMG Entertainment and Yves Sisteron, Managing Partner of GRP.
"UGO Networks' strength lies not only in the size and composition of its audience, 18- 34 year old males, but in the way in which its unique business model enables multiple revenue streams," said John Wehrle, Managing Partner of Gryphon Investments. "The Company's management team has proven to be extremely adept at leveraging and maximizing all of its internal resources."
"UGO Networks has demonstrated the ability and business acumen not only to survive but to succeed in today's market environment," said Yves Sisteron, Managing Partner of GRP. "The management team is highly adept at both managing cash and generating revenue. The company has had tremendous success in building a base of blue chip advertisers and technology clients."
UGO Networks has overall annual revenues of $15 million.
"UGO Networks will use the new funding to continue operations until our breakeven which will happen before the end of calendar year 2001," said UGO President and CEO, J Moses. "To this end, we are taking cost cutting measures to increase efficiencies in our business."
UGO Networks will use the new proceeds to grow UGO Technology Solutions, its technology business and to develop and sell advertising sponsorship packages.
"As a well funded company, we are looking to leverage our cash position to explore potential strategic partners. An ideal partner would enhance our market position and leverage the Company's core assets," said Joe Robinson, Chairman and Founder, UGO Networks.
....
The difference here is the company hasn't filed yet, from what I understand, for bankruptcy protection.
What they are doing is making all of you their best offer. This is the same as you having a massive debt YOU can't pay, and offering the collection agency 3/4's of the amount, if they stop harrassing you.
In this case it seems like it isn't at all 3/4's of the amount, but it's probably the best they can do.
If you decide to take the money, they OF COURSE would demand you waive your rights to litigation over the matter, because (quite honestly), it would be stupid for anyone to offer money to people, only to leave themselves open for further litigation. If they are GIVING you money, they don't want to turn around and pay more for legal fees on TOP of it.
If you decide to litigate, I think you'll find yourself completely SCREWED in this matter. They will probably show up in court, explain they don't HAVE the money, and offered you as much as they could in an effort to stem bankruptcy.
If all of you join together and sue them, you'll probably just force their hand -- meaning, you'll probably get nothing; they'll file bankruptcy. Because, like I suspect, you are NOT 'SECURED' creditors at all, but mearly the run-of-the-mill debtors like we all are sometimes. And, you'll just have to wait in line behind everyone they DID sign personally for, like their ISP, hardware vendors, and even their EMPLOYEES.
My advice: Take what you are offered and hit the road. At least you'll get something, rather than legal fees for getting NOTHING.
Beatings with metal pipes would be acceptable.
______
jeff13
It works in the movies.
'Same speed C but faster'
By "last 2 checks," I assume that you mean the checks being offered for January and February of this year. BTW, IANAL. Now, it seems to me that if they are telling you that you have to sign away your "rights" (more like expectations) to being paid for March and April in order to get the checks already owed for January and February, then I think that's a load of crap (note use of high-level legalese). I would hope that somebody in your position would have already had a contract with UGO that clearly defines how you are to be compensated for running their ads (and hopefully the timeframe of said compensation). If that's the case, then it would seem that they're already in breach of contract. Getting you to sign away half the money they owe you in order to get any at all is just a tactic that they'll take because they think that they can get away with it. After all, most of the websites that you mentioned are run by hobbyists or young adults for whom the site is not their primary source of income (nor are they likely to file a lawsuit). Beyond that, I would think that it seriously would call into question UGO's ability to pay you any future money that they will end up oweing you (for May, etc.). Of course, that also calls into question their ability to pay any eventual legal settlement as well. Let's face it, you're dealing with a company that is financially tapped out. You could refuse to sign the new contract and sue for this year's money owed. Odds are you wouldn't get much for your effort and you'd have to pay lawyers fees. You could sign the contract, take the money from January and February and then tell UGO to take a hike. Or you could not sign the contract, not sue, tell UGO to take a hike and hope to get somthing out of them if they go bankrupt. Any way you slice it, you're doinked. If this is only a hobby to you, take the money and run. If this is your profession or you really need that extra money, talk to an attorney and see what he thinks. This of course assumes that the amount of money owed is actually significant (in the thousands of dollars). Either way, wash your hands of UGO through whatever manner is stipulated in your contract and get on with life.
Seems to me like there's two stories contradicting themselves here. Furthermore, promises of increased traffic are highly exaggerated - bla-bla never generated any significant traffic of it's own, if I had a front page feature on their site I'd be lucky to get 100 unique visitors a day from that feature, on the first day. They all seem quite fond of speaking in collective terms; "traffic" is defined as the total traffic of their affiliate sites, don't fall for this trick. As for increased revenues, boy would I like to see that - payouts have been extremely weak and (IMHO) undervalued, with all the shaving going on with "Direct Costs" and "ICP Share" you're lucky to come out with your shirt still on. Needless to say, I'm letting my contract expire and am going to pursue alternative methods for generating some dough from my web site.
I don't know what anti-SLAPP is, could you please advise. I would rather not make an ass out of myself by taking a guess.
if you see me, smile and say hello.
If you can, try to bring suit in Arizona. Arizona is one of a very few states that uses an old Germanic law for settling court fees. In Civil cases, the winner gets court fees included automatically. If you have a good case, which you seem to have, you'll be sitting pretty.
Now if this had been phrased differently like: Here's what is being done to screw honest web-hosting nerds out of their due money... It might pass as news for nerds.
Now don't get me wrong. I dislike companies pulling this kinda shit just as much as the next guy. But I think this guy should hire a lawyer and slashdot should post news.
--
--
Unscrample my email, win a prize.
I've had more trouble in the past with banner ad programs than I care to discuss here, but through all of them, I've learned 1 thing: they all reserve the right to bail on you for no reason. Even the biggest and most reputable companies have a clause in their contracts that allow them to terminate your agreement without payment for any reason at any time at their sole discretion. Law suits cost money, and class action suits never seem to give you what you deserve even when you win. I know it sucks, but I would really recommend just cutting your losses and taking the checks before they declare bankruptcy and you get nothing. The only way to make any real money with advertising is to solicit the advertisements yourself and get the money up front. Unfortunately, this means you now need a marketing department...
Try the Federal Trade Commission at http://www.ftc.gov/. They can give you a hand if enough people complain about it. You can do a class action suit. The lawyers tend to be free if the money of the suit is high.
I'm not a webmaster in the "community proprietor" sense, but I've been very interested in how Tip Jars are evolving.
It's my opinion that the smaller, agile, and useful web sites will survive via people throwing them a buck or two every so often. I did this just for the first time the other day, at a little site called MikoDocs, and man did it feel good. I found his site through Google and PayPal-ed the guy for saving me time. He sent a thank you response. Very fulfilling, way better than responding to a plea to click on an ad.
If the site you oversee is truly valuable to your users, and has an active community, I don't think you'll have any problems collecting money to cover costs, if that's your goal. Lum the Mad (whose site I can't get to at the moment) did a cool thing in sharing the balance sheet with his usership (expenses vs. donations). Very cool feedback that I think would encourage more people to donate. He even caps his donations when he covers the month's expenses.
I think it's time to smack down these parasitic "ad networks" and kick off the next wave -- Tip Jar Meritocracy (sm).
From an egoistic point of view, sue them. It looks as if the law's on your side, so you'll probably succeed. Also, they seem to figure that they have enough money to pay everybody half the check [and still have some left, of course]. So, if you sue them, and enough other webmaster take their bait, you'll get more than half of your money. On the other hand, if everybody sues them, you'll still get at least half the money, since they have it.
But you're goint to have to talk to a lawyer, have him put together a strongly worded letter saying that if they don't pay up, you will have no choice but to see them in court. They're in breach of contract here, and if what you say is true, you've got pretty much a slam dunk case here.
If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.
why not send them a bunch of lawyers in the mail? After all, lawyers are the ultimate gifts that keep on giving; they brighten any relationship, and spread cheer, goodwill, and fair dealing. And they don't take up that valuable rack space that you never have enough of.
"Lawyers - Peace through Strength"
"Lawyers - Don't do Businesss without One"
"Lawyers - Yeah I trust you, but I don't want it up the butt again"
"Lawyers - Mutually Assured Reaming"
"Lawyers - Bring a lawyer to the table, everyone loses."
"Lawyers - what does pyhrric mean again?"
Seems to me that he doesnt really want to sue anyone:
"A lawsuit just doesnt seem like it would really net any cash"
and wants to get peoples advice about how the situation can be sorted:
"Does anyone have any realistic advice for all these webmasters?"
Lots of webmasters read slashdot so it seems like a fair enough place to ask what others have done in this situation.
I think you're being a bit harsh.
Class action lawsuit. 'Nuff said...
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Build a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a night.
Set a man on fire, and you keep him warm for the rest of his life! - Terry Pratchett
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Sign the contract to get your last two months pay and THEN sue them. They won't be able to uphold that contract in court without facing criminal charges of conspiracy, fraud and extortion. Have fun...
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
This definitely seems pretty unfair, but have you talked to the people at UGO about it? It is definitely a bad idea to sign that and lose your rights to money you're entitled to, but it might also be a good idea and ride out the hard times and hope for a better future.
It will do you no good to sue, get the money and then UGO goes out of business if you can take a paycut and possibly see UGO's situation turn around. I can see you saying "Yeah, right, that's going to happen", but maybe having a better idea of UGO's long term business plan would help you make a decision.
Keep in mind I know that pretty much every other company like UGO is out of business (efront, gamefan, etc), but I also don't know UGO's business model so it'd be pretty presumptuous to say they're screwed.
-PYves
You could refuse to sign the new contract and sue for this year's money owed. Odds are you wouldn't get much for your effort and you'd have to pay lawyers fees. You could sign the contract, take the money from January and February and then tell UGO to take a hike. Or you could not sign the contract, not sue, tell UGO to take a hike and hope to get somthing out of them if they go bankrupt.
You could sign the contract, take a paycut and be grateful you still get revenue for running a webpage as opposed to everyone who lost out in the recent bankruptcies.
You'd probably also be better off asking the people at UGO what their (long term) future is looking like before committing to any new long term contract.
-PYves
This might be seen as a troll... but it needs to be said.
One thing I noticed right away is that almost everyone says "call your lawyer" or "lawsuit" right away, without even looking at the other side of the medal.
Sure, you have a signed agreement that says "UGO will pay me this much", but you know what? UGO can't pay you that much and taking them to court is not going to change that.
Now, if you think that you are getting screwed on this, why not talk to the people at UGO? I'm sure they have people who will be able to explain to you pretty simply why they issued this new contract (although it's pretty obvious they have really small bank accounts by now) and what the plans are for the network as a whole.
When you signed that contract and UGO started hosting your site, you became business partners. When you have a conflict don't take it right to the legal system; talk it out, see what's going on and then decide what you are going to do about it.
UGO isn't your enemy in this case, and it's much more diplomatic to give them a call and talk it over than to have your lawyer do it.
You're in the same boat as UGO, if they get screwed, you're going to get screwed too in the long run.
Lawsuits are not the answer to everything, although I'm sure people who go on Judge Judy would say otherwise.
-PYves
Lawyers are rather expensive and have no interest in keeping your business alive. From the sound of your orginal post this is a big hit to your own cash flow since these guys were a major if not primary source of revenue. Where I come from there is a saying "ye cannae take the breeks off a highlander" meaning if somone doesn't have any money it's not worth sueing them. Even if you sign this agreement (which is dubiously legal by my very limited understanding) I don't think you'll get a bean. Much more important is to think about your own business (and job) survival and finding a new revenue source is much more likely to help you there. Accountants are likely to come up with some simple matters of good business practice which will help you stay afloat. Also accounting firms actually deal with both sides of bankruptcy so they know a great deal of the small print that lawyers do. Good luck.
UGO is on it's way out. It has been for a while. Odds are that you won't see a dime from them if you don't sign the docs. Think about it. Court costs + lawyer fees - actual cash won (and paid by UGO -- it may be a tall order) = net loss for you. Of course, if you're in the same situation as people like Lowtax from SA, you're already looking at a larger net loss. It may seem lame and it's definitely unethical (they can't force you to sign an agreement to get payments they already owe you under a previous contract), but you may have to sign and take what you can get. Otherwise, you most likey won't see a dime. But then again, I'm a huge cynic too.
"I do not regret the things I have done, but those that I did not do."
A contract is only as legally binding as its clauses to get out. Besides, you've been riding the insanely high UGO ad payouts for too long. Welcome to the new internet economy. Or don't. Its your choice. But you aren't going to find any more free rides out there. My advice is go back to your day job. -C
If you are checking with licensed local counsel regarding your options, be sure to inquire about an involuntary bankruptcy case. That's right. Under 11 U.S.C. 303 there are certain situations in which creditors have the right to place a business into either Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 against its will. Now one of those requirements is that you have three or more entities meeting certain criteria (303(b)(1)). As you have described the situation, you and the other affiliates seem to be at least three different creditors, all of whom have substantial debts. The details, pros and cons should be discussed at length with your counsel, i.e. pro: a United States Trustee will administer assets and pay debts. Con: the debts may be paid pennies on the dollar if at all, depending on assets. Nevertheless, the bare possibility of an involuntary bankruptcy may alter the bargaining positions of the company. They may decide that they can be a tad more generous even if it is only so they can squirrel away more assets before they finally collapse.