Is SOULCASH still around?

Yea, you don't hear much about them anymore.

damn i suck

I just realized I had some old links up for SoulCash. Thanks for the heads up.

pay me my money user janey........asap...........

Soulcash members area is officially dead...

Seth is still pushing traffic as an affiliate though through freepornalive.com

Maybe something big happened and now selling isn't an option.

It looks like spam happened

seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/233448_pornspam21.html

Is soulcash now TrafficGreen.com ??? Inquiring minds want to know.

What makes you say that?

where's our money?

A bump for $'s owed!

bump for a old program who should have lasted

SoulCash Battled the US GOVERNMENT


The other companies in the suite all bowed down and gave in



Seth battled it out because he knew he was not in the wrong

lost everything in the process but in the end he won against the DOJ


I am sure he is trying to get his stuff going so he can get back up and running and I am sure he has every intention to pay his webmaster base thats what he has been saying he will do


but if you have to start over from scratch and spent all your money in a lawsuite against the DOJ its going to take some time

Soul Cash Rocked!!

SoulCash was one of the greatest programs ever.

R.I.P

mad love for Seth and Soulcash...I hope he makes a comeback.

what was it about

Can-Spam if I'm not mistaken.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...47_spam25.html

Adult Web business off the hook for spam
Jury: E-mails were fault of affiliates
By TODD BISHOP
P-I REPORTER

After insisting all along that it wasn't spamming, a Renton-based adult Web site operator won Monday in a civil case brought by the Federal Trade Commission under laws regulating unsolicited commercial e-mail messages.

A jury in U.S. District Court in Seattle determined that Impulse Media Group Inc. was not responsible for hundreds of unsolicited, sexually explicit commercial e-mails sent by some of its affiliates to bring traffic to its sites.

Lawyers said the jury's verdict may affect other spam-related cases. The use of affiliates is a common practice in the industry.

The case, brought under the CAN-SPAM Act, hinged on the question of whether Impulse Media "initiated" the illegal e-mails sent by its affiliates. Under the law, that could include intentionally paying or inducing another person to send the messages.

During the trial, Impulse Media cited its policies against unsolicited e-mail, saying the role of its affiliates is to generate referrals using links from other Web sites, not e-mail messages. The company said it terminated relationships with affiliates that broke its own anti-spam rules.

"I didn't do anything wrong," said a victorious Seth Schermerhorn, Impulse Media president, speaking from the defense table in an exchange with U.S. District Chief Judge Robert Lasnik after the jury verdict had been read.

During closing arguments, Jeffrey Steger, a lawyer with the Justice Department's civil division, said Impulse Media's affiliates weren't required to read the program agreement that spells out the anti-spam rules. He said terminated Impulse Media affiliates were able to sign up again.

"The program agreement is a sham," Steger told the jury Monday morning. He declined to comment after the verdict was returned Monday afternoon.

During his closing argument, Spencer Freeman, a lawyer for Impulse Media, sought to illustrate the scope of the issue by holding up a container filled with thousands of tiny pellets, to represent all of the company's affiliates, then pulling out four of them, to represent the affiliates who sent the illegal e-mails.

"Is that evidence of inducement?" Freeman asked, answering his question by calling it "evidence of a well-run program."

Freeman acknowledged that the jurors might not agree with the sexually oriented contents of the e-mails. In the end, he asked them to look past that and send a message to the government.

Robert Apgood, lead lawyer for Impulse Media in the case, said afterward that he hopes more companies in similar situations will stand up to the government in the way that it did. "Perhaps the government will stop overreaching the statute and stop trying to read into it what isn't there," Apgood said.

The U.S. CAN-SPAM Act doesn't ban unsolicited e-mail, but it restricts and regulates it -- prohibiting deceptive subject lines and efforts to mask a message's origins, among other things. It also requires sexually explicit e-mails to be labeled as such. The government showed examples in which e-mails from Impulse Media affiliates violated that and other aspects of the law.

The Federal Trade Commission brought the case against Impulse Media in 2005. Several others that faced similar actions at the same time settled their cases with the government. Much of the evidence in the case was in e-mails collected by Microsoft in Hotmail accounts.

The verdict in the case could have broader implications.

"I think it will be less likely for plaintiffs and the government to bring spam cases based on affilate conduct unless there's actually substantial evidence to back up the fact that the marketer knew about the affiliates' violations," said Seattle lawyer Venkat Balasubramani, who tracks spam and related issues on his blog, spamnotes.com. In that way, he said, it's "a big ruling."

Balasubramani said he was somewhat surprised by the verdict because of the negative feelings many people have toward spam, which might create a natural bias against a company accused of helping to spread it.

Apgood, the lawyer for Impulse Media, acknowledged such feelings but said the company isn't part of the problem.

"We all hate spam," Apgood said. "I hate spam. Impulse Media hates spam. ... We condemn the people who signed up for the Webmaster program who then turned around and spammed."

What does that say about justice?

I'm not in the wrong, but hey, I'll pay half a million dollars to get them off my back. OR, I'll spend MILLIONS and go bankrupt in the process of being found not guilty.

How the DOJ isn't responsible for some sort of compensation in a case where the defendant is found not guilty is beyond me.

The link is dead!