If you reread my post you might realize that my point is that people should not focus so much on the status of the claimant as to the weight of their legal claim. It is precisely this ability, at least in American jurisprudence, that results in progressive changes to the law. As for there being no relationship between the specific case Roe v. Wade and 2 pornographers suing each other, sure--its 2 differing bodies of law [privacy rights and torts/fraud, respectively], but once again my point revolves around the status of the claimant and their ability to bring suit.

As for pornographers having a bias against them, Jerry Fallwell's defamation lawsuit against Larry Flynt was not helped/hurt by the fact that Larry is a pornographer. Indeed, that suit redefined the element of "malice" in defamation claims due to the heavy weight of speech rights.

http://bbs.gofuckyourself.net/board/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by pimplink (edited 11-29-2001).]

[This message has been edited by pimplink (edited 11-29-2001).]

[This message has been edited by pimplink (edited 11-29-2001).]

Dude, no need to personally insult someone just because they don't agree with you. People have differing opinions, let's just bring out the facts to back them up.

I suggest you read back thru the thread. Insults begat insults. I am a simpleton like that.

Courts see people talking on message board as opinions, not facts.

California Appeals Court Upholds Message Board Speech (27 Nov 2001, 4:34 PM CST) http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/172455.html

and this is not the only real case.

I don't see any scary reason for not expressing publicly your thoughts. Some people call it freedom of speech, some others don't like this. I guess it depends on which side you belong each time.

Someone can state 100s reasons in order to make someone not to declare his right through the law process. You can do it if you care about him and you think the result will actually hurt him instead of helping him. Or you can do it because deep inside you see through his/her action a threaten, not directly towards to you probably this time, but to your field. Thanks god there are still people ready to risk for their right.

Jesus some of you sound spineless in this thread! I'm hearing that no one should stand up to someone ripping them off because that might rock the boat? What are we sharecroppers?

Indeed.

Labret, Pimplink

Will you guys shoot me an e-mail with your ICQ: [email protected]

Would like to chat about this topic...

[This message has been edited by AWS Philip (edited 11-30-2001).]

I see nothing wrong with standing up for your rights - and I mean no disrespect against Labret, but 100s of people are always coming on here saying they have "proof" they are being shaved. I have yet to SEE any proof - all I have seen so far is heresay and junk science. I know that many of these people THINK they have proof, but they don't have legal proof.

If he does have proof - then by all means go for it.

Despite what some have suggested - there are no unique and interesting points of law here. Gideon, Miranda, Roe, and a slew of others were the first in their field (more or less).

The law in this case is well settled - if someone is shaving - they are breaching their contract with you. It could also be considered theft. I don't think anyone could argue if he could PROVE shaving - he wouldn't have a case (unless you wanna go with the contract thing, but they voided that claim by paying him anything in the first place).


------------------
TopBucks.com - Converting at better than 1:130
David Lace Content - Highest Quality Teen Content
ConversionCash.com - Make Money off your WebTV Traffic

Might not be a bad idea to read the TOS very closely of any company you intend to make a target.

GO FUCKING GET THEM........ if you have this proof you say you do well then go after it...

but just know going into such a battle you best to take your pants off grab your anckles and hope that Anal Hobbit is not behind you cause you probaly will get fucked in the ass but HEY anything is worth a try...

And besides if you do loose we all can learn from your mistakes...

Stop crying.

With what I have now there is now way I could go into court with it.

This has strayed somewhat from what my post intended.

All I am saying is, I have seen it, I know its happeneing, others have seen it and others know it is happening.

Now, if I can get together a couple of good lawyers, and enlist the help of a very reputable third party ecommerce auditing firm to oversee it, and walk in with a years worth the data... I think you could seriously work over a sponsor who thinks it is ok to shave when it states in their TOS that you will not be.

Imagine if Amazon.com got caught shaving their affiliates. Their ass would be grass in no time flat. Just because we work in smut does not mean the legal system does not apply to us.

Yeah but why even try? it would be one hell of a battle cause it would be so hard to prove.. but if it was prove it would make the industry go UP and UP and UP but seriously man it would be YEARS befor anything would happen and like stated befor there really is no evidenc...if you get shit on the screen who is to say it is not just a glitch?

What proof you got now??

Mailman

Gee, sure sounds like some respect and trust would be called for amonst these "others" you speak of and yourself. You think 6 other webmasters that you've crapped all over on the wm boards are going to feel like going to bat with you? Not likely. I think you just proved me right, that some positive networking with your fellow webmasters is a prudent thing to do.

As for your original question, the answer from me is yes, I would support such an action if the evidence was solid enough. Just as it is for the cheating webmaster who get's caught cheating and loses all the money owed to him as penalty, I believe that cheating sponsors should also be held accountable. If I send 20k uniques to a sponsor and get 60 signups but they only pay me for 40, that is theft PERIOD. Just the fact that they have to take the time to go to court to defend themselves would do any such sponsor some damage, possibly enough to actually put a damper on the shaving ways of others.

Doing nothing while holding onto legitimate proof is the worst thing to do, especially if the means to launch such a suit is within your grasp. I say nuke em.
<font face="Verdana">___________
CD
* <a href="http://www.sunsetbeachbabes.com/" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#FFFFDD"> Sunset Beach Party</font></a> Centerfolds ~ Amateurs ~ Teens, <a href="http://www.sunsetbeachbabes.com/webmasters.html" TARGET="_blank">new trades</a> welcome.
* <a href="http://clickthrutraffic.com/scripts/signup.php?referer=cdsmith" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#FFDDFF"> Click-thrutraffic.com</font></a> 5 cents up to 20 cents per click!
* <a href="http://www.erasercash.com/wm.html?ID=1380291" TARGET="_blank"><font face="Verdana" color="#FFCCCC">ERASERCASH!</font></a> Earn $35 per sale + webmaster referrals 4 LEVELS DEEP</font>

That's a very good point. Here's a few snippets from a very popular programs TOS.

*Note that a commission will only be paid if the visitor to our site can be tracked by the system from the time of the Link to the time of the sale. No commission will be paid if the visitor's payment to our site cannot be tracked directly to your site by our system or if full payment for services is not made to us by the customer.*

That's vague enough to get them out of a lot of jams don't you think? A lot of "IF'S" in that paragraph.

*If you dispute the manner or amount of calculation of your commission with regard to any given payment period, you must inform COMPANY within sixty (60) days of said payment, otherwise you are deemed to have waived your right to challenge said payment calculation.*

Now your lawsuit is limited to 60 days worth of commissions.

*In addition, we make no representation that the operation of our site will be uninterrupted or error-free, and we will not be liable for the consequences of any interruptions or errors.*

Notice the words "error-free*

*This Agreement will be governed by the laws of Aruba and the Dutch West Indies, without reference to rules governing choice of laws.*

There go your chances for a lawsuit in United States Federal Court.

*THIS IS A LEGAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND COMPANY. BY CLICKING ON THE "ACCEPT" BUTTON AT THE END OF THIS AFFILIATE PROGRAM AGREEMENT YOU ARE AFFIRMATIVELY STATING THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE TERMS SET FORTH HEREIN AND ARE AFFIRMATIVELY INDICATING YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AFFILIATE PROGRAM AGREEMENT AND YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS THEREOF.*

If you signed up for the program, you agreed to everything above, whether you read it first or not.
And like I said, this is a VERY BIG, and VERY POPULAR per sign up program. I imagine the TOS of all of the others is very similar to this.




------------------
90% of this business is half mental.

No US company could get out of willful shaving of its webmasters with a TOS. There is a limit on what can be done in such agreements. Blatent fraud on the part of a company is not protected by anything other than a statute of limitations.

The PROBLEM is he doesn't have proof of ANYTHING. There is no way you can KNOW a program is shaving. You cannot SEE shaving, unless there is some column on the stats reports that says "amount we shafeted you out of". You can BELIEVE it all you want. If you KNOW this - drop the program. Why people complain about 0:20,000 ratios for more than a week is beyond me. There is no way that I would send 20,000 clicks somewhere without getting credit - shaving or not.

It reminds me of the old lady that was playing the slots next to a friend of mine in Atlantic City. She was muttering this and that about the casinos - one of the things she said was "they're all fixed you know" as she continued to put in dollar after dollar.

Lenny2 does have a good point (even if he wasn't trying to make it) is assuming you can prove that you did not get paid for all transactions you should have - they will just claim it is a mistake. You'd still get the money, but be out thousands in fees.

This stuff happens all the time with contracts and the like. Companies make "mistakes" - the commissioner of the FDA makes "calculation errors".

If you have PROOF - then by all means go after them. The courts will not let you go on fishing expeditions and hire people to audit their records without some sort of proof to begin with. You must have at least one piece of EVIDENCE, that would show they are shaving. This would either have to be TESTIMONY from someone INSIDE or a DOCUMENT from them about their shaving practices. Then you could have the records audited to find more evidence and prove damages. Without some sort of proof to begin with - companies like exxon and the like would go out of business as they would be sues by every tom dick and harry attorney looking through their records trying to find something wrong they did.

Nor will the courts care what it is about - you can be selling bibles or porn - the law is the same - if you got shafted, and have proof, sue them.

------------------
TopBucks.com - Converting at better than 1:130
David Lace Content - Highest Quality Teen Content
ConversionCash.com - Make Money off your WebTV Traffic

WHAT THE FU.K IS WRONG WITH SOME OF YOU ???

I am surly not Labret's biggest fan, but
if the guy is wanting to catch a cheat or
two and spend his money doing so then let
him !!
If he has no proof then he will not win!

The more you try and talk him out of it
the guiltier you appear to the rest of us!
why try and stop him if you are not guilty,
i wonder? have you suddenly become Labret's best friend and want to save him some money?
http://bbs.gofuckyourself.net/board/wink.gif

Pimplink, I actually do agree with you. We all have the right to sue anyone we want if we feel we have been wronged. I appologize if I came off wrong. What I meant to say really was that I only ever see the smaller webmasters doing all the complaining and finger pointing and accusations about sponsor cheating. You don't very often see the "Bigger Guys" claiming they are being cheated and/or shaved ??? In most posts about cheating, it's seems to always be the small guy doing the finger pointing. Usually theese people are proven to be the cheaters themselves from what I've read, (No Labret I am not calling you a cheater at all) this is just a general observation.

I am all for the webmaster that thinks he got shaved those 3 or 4, $35.00 dollar sign ups, to spend the next 2 years of their life, and 100's of thousands of dollars to collect that 140 bucks they got shaved.. http://bbs.gofuckyourself.net/board/eek.gif

I think these lawsuits should start going both ways...
if some eastern european scammer tries to hitbot me for 100K hits a day, should I go after them? Oh that's right, most of them don't have any money anyways...so I guess there'd be nothing to go after...dang, I hate when only succesasful people get sued ;)

seriously though, many of you know that I'm opening a new blind proggie soon, but did you also know that 80% of my programming is cheating blocks and things to stop the scumbag hitbotters and circlejerkers that love to drop a blind/per click program on a 15th console of a 5th console...90% of my time once opened will be catching cheaters...so for every webmaster who bitches about shaving, there are sponsors who are getting cheated left and right. Even some of the bigger per click programs are stopping their pay per click programs as they don't have the time and resources to keep up with all the cheaters. 12clicks could probably elaborate more on this...

What has been happening in the background and will continue to happen is that more and more sponsors will start making private deals with webmasters. Soon you won't be able to sign up for a new program without a referal or recomendation of a "name". The days of instant affiliate signups will stop.

We're already adding a module to our software whereby the webmaster will have to register the domains they'll be sending traffic from so it'll be easier to look up whois records (although most of those are bullshit too). There is a fairly high level of distrust on both sides and I see a lot of changes happening soon. I'm not defending shaving, fraud or cheating on any level, but I will tell you this, hits not appearing, signups not showing up, etc. are not necessarily signs of shaving. Hits get lost, software doesn't always catch every hit. Did you know that some webmaster and even some sponsors consoles and such don't work in Netscape? How many hits and signups are being lost there? That's not shaving, just sloppy programming, it happens. We're lucky enough to be in an industry where we can make 50K deals over the phone without endless committees and paperwork, that doesn't happen in many other industries. There is a built in trust factor. If you don't trust your sponsor, switch sponsors, or open your own program. If as a program owner, I don't trust affiliates, I sure as hell don't want them in my program.

So, will a lawsuit change anything? Sure. Even sponsors who are doing nothing wrong don't want to tie up their money in litigation (how many honest sponsors would still have to pay a lawyer for frivolous lawsuits?) So if the precedent starts, you'll see even honest programs close down their programs for new webmasters and only allow "approved" webmasters into their programs.

But, if you feel you have solid EVIDENCE of cheating, then by all means, hire a lawyer and go for it. Just make sure the evidence is solid, because if you sue an innocent sponsor or lose your case in court, you would be gone in this industry for the most part. No one else would trust you to be in their program. Just a few things to think about.



------------------
Making Bank
You'll Soon Find Out How Making Bank Plans To Pay An Honest $84 Per Trial Join Everday!

Evil is as evil does
Dark Dollars

i'll read your last posts later on when i finish some tasks. I want to comment on TOS part i read yesterday.
Courts don't give a shit about a TOS that the majority of online companies copy from each others like they do on privacy policy.

------------------
PLATINUMBUCKS PAY $30/trial AND OFFERS 14 HIGH CONVERTING SITES! http://www.platinumbucks.com/?revid=3271

These sponsors can shave all they want -- we will just move on to the next sponsor that doesn't shave. If you are selling larger volumes of traffic you can always sell it to the highest bidder -- or to people you know and trust.

It's not good business to shave -- and time will tell this... This is still a young biz -- the people that are shaving now will not last... I will never trust Brad Shaw again and I will talk shit about him for the next 20 years... I plan on being in this biz for a long time. Maybe he cheated me out of $1000 -- maybe $2000 -- who fucking knows or cares besides Brad Shaw himself -- he probably has no fucking idea who I am anyway -- no problem -- it's only his loss -- in a few years I could have made him 100x that amount and referred 100x that amount of money with referrals if he had just been up-front and straight with me. Someone like Oliver Klozov that kisses my ass -- calls me at home -- flys me to Vegas, invites me to parties with playmates in Beverly Hills -- this is where my traffic will go -- fuck the shavers.

Reputation goes a long way -- especially for paysites... the traffic follows the sites that make the traffic pay... and as you have all seen -- it moves quickly... A theif counting on traffic residue and rebills will eventually be crying for a handout as the industry becomes more and more sophisticated.

Start shaving now and marvel at the mass traffic exodus that foreshadows your doomed withering assets! Hahaha!

------------------
<A HREF="http://www.thefly.net/topfly.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://thefly.net/flybump.gif </A>Oh Baby! TheFLY.net

The Fly, you speak some very intelligent words http://bbs.gofuckyourself.net/board/smile.gif I also agree Oliver is 1 hell of a guy, 1 of the best people I know.

------------------
Smiles

What's even more scary is that you can say this and still laugh.


------------------
<A HREF="http://www.thefly.net/topfly.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://thefly.net/flybump.gif </A>Oh Baby! TheFLY.net

Hahaha... I like that.

If at all possible -- let's keep the greedy lawyers out of this. There's enough hands already in the cookie jar.



------------------
<A HREF="http://www.thefly.net/topfly.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://thefly.net/flybump.gif </A>Oh Baby! TheFLY.net

I think it all ends up to a waste of time..

I've seen it, I've tested it, and some do shave...

but it doesn't matter... because when a bunch of people claim someone does shave, what happens is you get another bunch that , either weren,t on the shave-o-matic at that time, or are blinded because they don't know best and claim they wouldn't do that and how good they are..

A while back, on Netpond, there was this CEN debate... some were on Cen's side, some weren't... we were a bunch to try a few CC... I passed, 6 others didn't and got redirected to dialers..
that week sucked in stats, but then, same traffic, for 2 weeks after it was nice..


Was it shaving, was it Problems , ? we'll never know for sure... but what's for sure is even though that was exposed, you'd have a majority of people putting their head in the sand and going to the point of DENYING even that there was a problem.

so indeed, the suggestion to put to the public your findings about a sponsor is futile IMHO... people won't accept that a well known organisation is doing bad... Save the dialer biz maybe.


As far as sueing, where will you get proof?

the only proof you could get is from the CC processor's stats, the Webmaster's stats, and the other guy's deposit

well, you get what I mean, comparing what the processor show in Signups, what the user shows, and what the sponsor shows...

but even then... would I be shaving, I'd shave using hidden acounts or something like that..

best of luck if you do, but i don't think it's a solution.


like 12clicks said, if they shave, it's in their disadvantage... they'll lose their biz faster...

aim for long term, and choose the people who do!

Take comfort: the shavers rot more slowly in hell ;)



------------------
<A HREF="http://www.thefly.net/topfly.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://thefly.net/flybump.gif </A>Oh Baby! TheFLY.net

Gee, what a surprise.

I read recently that the courts don't give a flying fuck about porn infringement, and that's why people get away with it. I don't know if it's true, but something to consider. Your case would probably receive similar treatment.