Quote:
Originally posted by Kimmykim
Holy shit, that's a good point you make Richard.
Quite frankly if a sponsor takes it upon themselves to assume any liability for anything their affiliates are doing, then does that not open the door for them to be liable for the rest of their affiliates and their marketing?
For instance, had the CEN vs AOL case regarding email spam not been settled, and had it actually gone to court with a win for AOL, I always said you would see the demise of the system as we know it -- courts would then have precedence to hold sponsors and processors that made affiliate payouts responsible for actions that their non-employees had made supposedly on their behalf -- knowingly or unknowingly.
Boy wouldn't that have been the end of the affiliate system.
|
In last months issue of AVN in the legal column it talked about the pill pushing prescriptions websites, and that some states like Nevada will prosecute affiliates. This particluar case was in CA., and CA, does not believe in contributory prosecutions. The article went on to infer there are other states like Nevada but did not mention them. Case of if sponsor gets pinched, so do the affiliates.
I know this is not the same thing..
But why did Lightspeed and Lens take a stance with their affililates sceening for certain triggers? Everyone applauded this.