I would send something to Amazon, and if I receive no response or a response saying: "we are not responsible for who links to us", then I would. I don't go in "lawsuits blazing." I inform them that I am an ISP, that the spams are in violation of the law, and they are responsible. I am not here to make the "industry happy." I had one person tell me that they are above the law and dared me to sue him. He was a bit upset when I did.
Actually, Perfect Gonzo is several shell corps in Nevada, Delaware, and Cyprus. From what I have gathered so far, there are people in Budapest and Colorado. There will be much more about them in the next few months.:)
Affiliates are not employees, but there is still an master/servant relationship. Under CAN-SPAM (in an ISP action) one must show that they knew or intentionally didn't know -- the Sargent Schultz Defense. Under California law, there is almost a strict liability.
Terminating an affiliate, but not having credentialed the affiliate, does not prevent them from signing up under a different name. If a company is not willing to control their affiliates (ie. a lawsuit), do you think it is a good idea to have them? DO you think a spammer would spam when there information is public to their victims? Since you are in the industry, then you know how easy the programming is to place the affiliate's information on the landing page as a response to a button on the landing page. It is fairly easy to detect if a referral came from a domain owned by a referrer instead of a spam -- not to cut them off immediately, but to take a closer look. If a company said, "sorry. Here is what we do to stop spammers..." I would not have filed suit.
You miss a few things. 1. 6 months after suit, Vivid didn't provide affiliate information. 2. The "affiliate agreement" is a contact between Vivid (or other site) and the spammer, this means that Vivid can sue that spammer for breach. Vivid knows who this affiliate is, do you think they provided the information? Do you think they asked for my help in prosecuting this guy?
I sued PerfectGonzo and got a judgment over $150k. I have a friend who collected over $100k from PerfectGonzo. Even after being sued, and having a default entered against PerfectGonzo, they still spammed me. Do you think they ever asked for the affiliate information? All they did was try to hide. They had no interest in stopping the spam.
And this is not like Amway. The affiliates are advertisers, not independant distributors. This is more like the door to door salesman of Great Western Insuance Company in the movie, the RainMaker. Amway, you buy a product from the distributor, the Amway distributor is like a store. Here, the affiliate is only an advertiser for the site owner. The site owner collects the money.
I had one company, when I sent an e-mail, they said sure. After 91, I sent a letter, I hear nothing, after 291, I sued -- they stopped.
Another company, I called, they were all cooperative. But, then their affiliates from another one of their companies spammed me. This had several companies. The FTC now have a monitor in them as result of a suit.
What I do is send a demand letter, without the e-mails. That way, if there was real interest, I would hear from them.
I was contacted by Vivid's attorney, who had said that they are not responsible for anyone who "links to them."
Out of at least 30 companies I contacted, I heard back from 2. I heard back from the attorneys of 3 of them. One of the attorney's threatened me with an anti-slapp motion if I filed suit.
I contacted some of the companies by e-mail, then I got spam to the unique e-mail address that I used to contact them.
If they (Porn websites) implemented good practices (such as the ones I suggested), it would cut down on quite a bit of the spam. But generally, when contacted I hear nothing back. But the industry is part of the problem. Of course it has improved over the last 2 years -- maybe because the FTC sued some of them.
Many of the websites do have those terms, but those terms never seem to be enforced. Yes, don't do it, Wink...Wink.
There is one company that when sued, they created two more companies to try to avoid judgment. After judgment was entered, they moved their money offshore.
First, I sold Bestline 35 years ago and it was not a huge contract, I have looked at the affiliate forms, and they are not huge either.
Second, this is not the same as Amway. Amway sells the product to the sales person, the sales person pays Amway. Here, the 'affiliate' places an advertisement for the web site, the web site collects the money, then sends the affiliate a cut. The law imparts liability on the web site in this situation.
Third, generally I contact these companies, and hear nothing back.
Their affiliates did. Their attorneys said that they had no responsibility for anyone who links to them.
There is lots they can do to prevent this:
1. Check their affiliates first. 2. Check the referrer information and compare it to the websites that the affiliate provided. 3. Identify the affiliate to the person referred by the affiliate (ie. a button that says "click here to see who sent you").
Many of the companies that spam through the affiliate programs use the Sargent Schultz defense - "I know nothing, I see nothing, I hear nothing."
How Frivilous?? Lets see, they hired people to spam, they spammed me, there are laws against spamming, I have clear notices that spam is not welcome. How else to stop them?
I had a friend bring in a compter, they said it was a dead hard drive. It gave the Win2k message, "unable to operate boot device" after the Win2k splash screen.
I just installed a new version of Windows and it was all happy. Any idiot knows what that message means.
As part of the settlement negotiation, their attorney said that they are considering filing bankruptcy. My response was, I couldn't be happier than have them bankrupt and living out of cardboard boxes, and if my suit does not do it, then I will help others do it.
What did Yahoo! do that was illegal? There is nothing said about what was illegal. You also seem to forget that Hong Kong is now part of China.
If Google provided the information to the government here instead of fighting, which I support the fight, Google was within the law. Yahoo! appears, but there is no documentation showing otherwise.
You can be denied a job beacuse your hair style is ugly. Or you smell bad. No need to verify facts. Even if its proven it was 'just your friends screwing around', you can still be denied as who wants a worker with friends like that?
That are true, but it is not legal if the employer decides not to hire you because you publically complained of discrimination. I interviewed with Etree, in Los Angeles, several years ago. After they read my website, I was turned down for the position and the person there said that I was too confrontational. They of course claim it is not because I fought disability discrimination -- yeah right. Coincidence?
I now use my confrontational personality to fight spammers.
The judge ignored the California spam law in this case, which provides almost strict liability. The "expert" for Kennedy Western said that the headers could have been forged by Hypertouch and Joe's family members. Even though the people that that KW hired said that they probably was not.
What you talking about "knowing" requirment creates the Sargent Schultz Defense. And they don't want to know anything since they profit from the spam. Now, if KW, displayed verified "affiliate" information when you went to their website, then I might agree with you. They want to know nothing.
DVD regision encoding has nothing to do with digital cinema. DVDs for digital cinema refers to the media, not the encoding. The DVDs are encrypted and only specific servers are permitted to decrypt that DVD. A typical movie would require 16 DVDs to store a movie.
Slashdot Mirror
Will it recoginize why I say when I say, "DELETE ALL FILES?"
Because a typewriters forced you to take a rest, because force was needed. Also, your was manual.
I would send something to Amazon, and if I receive no response or a response saying: "we are not responsible for who links to us", then I would. I don't go in "lawsuits blazing." I inform them that I am an ISP, that the spams are in violation of the law, and they are responsible. I am not here to make the "industry happy." I had one person tell me that they are above the law and dared me to sue him. He was a bit upset when I did.
:)
Actually, Perfect Gonzo is several shell corps in Nevada, Delaware, and Cyprus. From what I have gathered so far, there are people in Budapest and Colorado. There will be much more about them in the next few months.
Affiliates are not employees, but there is still an master/servant relationship. Under CAN-SPAM (in an ISP action) one must show that they knew or intentionally didn't know -- the Sargent Schultz Defense. Under California law, there is almost a strict liability.
Terminating an affiliate, but not having credentialed the affiliate, does not prevent them from signing up under a different name. If a company is not willing to control their affiliates (ie. a lawsuit), do you think it is a good idea to have them? DO you think a spammer would spam when there information is public to their victims? Since you are in the industry, then you know how easy the programming is to place the affiliate's information on the landing page as a response to a button on the landing page. It is fairly easy to detect if a referral came from a domain owned by a referrer instead of a spam -- not to cut them off immediately, but to take a closer look. If a company said, "sorry. Here is what we do to stop spammers..." I would not have filed suit.
You miss a few things. 1. 6 months after suit, Vivid didn't provide affiliate information. 2. The "affiliate agreement" is a contact between Vivid (or other site) and the spammer, this means that Vivid can sue that spammer for breach. Vivid knows who this affiliate is, do you think they provided the information? Do you think they asked for my help in prosecuting this guy?
I sued PerfectGonzo and got a judgment over $150k. I have a friend who collected over $100k from PerfectGonzo. Even after being sued, and having a default entered against PerfectGonzo, they still spammed me. Do you think they ever asked for the affiliate information? All they did was try to hide. They had no interest in stopping the spam.
And this is not like Amway. The affiliates are advertisers, not independant distributors. This is more like the door to door salesman of Great Western Insuance Company in the movie, the RainMaker. Amway, you buy a product from the distributor, the Amway distributor is like a store. Here, the affiliate is only an advertiser for the site owner. The site owner collects the money.
When the a Mac in the war zone they have a display an small IED (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_explosive _device ) on the screen?
But Windows systems are good in a war zone, a soldier can easily use the BSOD function.
I had one company, when I sent an e-mail, they said sure. After 91, I sent a letter, I hear nothing, after 291, I sued -- they stopped.
Another company, I called, they were all cooperative. But, then their affiliates from another one of their companies spammed me. This had several companies. The FTC now have a monitor in them as result of a suit.
What I do is send a demand letter, without the e-mails. That way, if there was real interest, I would hear from them.
I was contacted by Vivid's attorney, who had said that they are not responsible for anyone who "links to them."
Out of at least 30 companies I contacted, I heard back from 2. I heard back from the attorneys of 3 of them. One of the attorney's threatened me with an anti-slapp motion if I filed suit.
I contacted some of the companies by e-mail, then I got spam to the unique e-mail address that I used to contact them.
What do you define as proper means and method?
If they (Porn websites) implemented good practices (such as the ones I suggested), it would cut down on quite a bit of the spam. But generally, when contacted I hear nothing back. But the industry is part of the problem. Of course it has improved over the last 2 years -- maybe because the FTC sued some of them.
Many of the websites do have those terms, but those terms never seem to be enforced. Yes, don't do it, Wink...Wink.
There is one company that when sued, they created two more companies to try to avoid judgment. After judgment was entered, they moved their money offshore.
Humbug!
First, I sold Bestline 35 years ago and it was not a huge contract, I have looked at the affiliate forms, and they are not huge either.
Second, this is not the same as Amway. Amway sells the product to the sales person, the sales person pays Amway. Here, the 'affiliate' places an advertisement for the web site, the web site collects the money, then sends the affiliate a cut. The law imparts liability on the web site in this situation.
Third, generally I contact these companies, and hear nothing back.
Their affiliates did. Their attorneys said that they had no responsibility for anyone who links to them.
There is lots they can do to prevent this:
1. Check their affiliates first.
2. Check the referrer information and compare it to the websites that the affiliate
provided.
3. Identify the affiliate to the person referred by the affiliate (ie. a button that says "click here to see who sent you").
Many of the companies that spam through the affiliate programs use the Sargent Schultz defense - "I know nothing, I see nothing, I hear nothing."
How Frivilous?? Lets see, they hired people to spam, they spammed me, there are laws against spamming, I have clear notices that spam is not welcome. How else to stop them?
When Bush appoints someone to protect our rights, we know we are going to lose alot more.
The porn industry has pushed the internet in both good and bad ways. They pushed up bandwidth, video quality, and computer speed.
I believe that porn is the biggest money maker on the Internet. One spammer that I sued, was making approximately $200k/week on 4 crappy porn sites.
Vivid is a spammer. I received spam from them and they are being sued. For more information you can go to http://www.myspamsuit.com/
Not original. I remember hearing about a sculpture for Steve Gibson's office. It would use motion detectors to convert motion to sound.
They should not even be allowed to use the name.
I had a friend bring in a compter, they said it was a dead hard drive. It gave the Win2k message, "unable to operate boot device" after the Win2k splash screen.
I just installed a new version of Windows and it was all happy. Any idiot knows what that message means.
Geek squad, ha!
Didn't they do that in 1999 near Moonbase Alpha?
http://www.space1999.org/
As part of the settlement negotiation, their attorney said that they are considering filing bankruptcy. My response was, I couldn't be happier than have them bankrupt and living out of cardboard boxes, and if my suit does not do it, then I will help others do it.
3 spammers down, too lots left.
What did Yahoo! do that was illegal? There is nothing said about what was illegal. You also seem to forget that Hong Kong is now part of China.
If Google provided the information to the government here instead of fighting, which I support the fight, Google was within the law. Yahoo! appears, but there is no documentation showing otherwise.
Can you show what they did that was illegal?
Is it that they are being called because they shut down sites for spamming???
I think that they are a bit slow on canceling spammer domains.
I now use my confrontational personality to fight spammers.
I just talked to Joe about this.
The judge ignored the California spam law in this case, which provides almost strict liability. The "expert" for Kennedy Western said that the headers could have been forged by Hypertouch and Joe's family members. Even though the people that that KW hired said that they probably was not.
What you talking about "knowing" requirment creates the Sargent Schultz Defense. And they don't want to know anything since they profit from the spam. Now, if KW, displayed verified "affiliate" information when you went to their website, then I might agree with you. They want to know nothing.
DVD regision encoding has nothing to do with digital cinema. DVDs for digital cinema refers to the media, not the encoding. The DVDs are encrypted and only specific servers are permitted to decrypt that DVD. A typical movie would require 16 DVDs to store a movie.
I have not seen it here in the USA. I worked on a digital preshhow system for a large theater chain in Switzerland, and they had it there.
The planet is not swallowing the probes or the landers. It is Marvin the Martian shooting the probes and th landers.
Who does or doesn't remember, Bernard Shifman is A Moron Spammer? Of course noone would hire an idiot like him.