wow, gosh, what do I do now? a fake nick on a message board insulted me

/me goes to cry now

Absolutely agree with you - When I first read the TMM thread I thought WTF are they thinking, did they actually clear this with their lawyer to let it roll to the masses... After reading the compliant PDF, XC for sure has a solid case.

Check this - XC is a REV-SHARE why would a rev shave in the first place - The goal of a rev-share is to build up as much recurring as possible or your affiliates split on you. No recurring joins = no affiliates simple as that. To me it was a flaw just like all the other times. Noted in the PDF are the programs who have had issues with Nats vs CCbill. TMM took a different path this time for some reason and for this, its going to bite them in the ass.

TMM is brilliant :upsidedow

That was based on 2 sites. Based on the partnership with Falcon Foto, this surely meant more sites would be released. The reference with Hustler sending traffic is definitely a plus, as to what scale it would have been, I have no idea, but surely dropping a large brand like that glorifies their case. I'm curious to see what percentage of that $500k gross profit was based on affiliate traffic and what percentage was from inhouse marketing.
WG

Yup, there is already some talk I am hearing. At the end of the day though, its software issues, nothing more.

you are right, I have

just sick of it all I guess

maybe i need to slow it down a bit

I was reading the court papers. OMG! They should go to Hell for lying like that. People on death row don't lie that much trying to win their freedom. They are dusgusting people who will say whatever it takes to make you like them and fuck you over in a hear beat if they can.

I think most program owners would concur if they were in their place. Cripple my business, and expect a backlash from the lawyers.
WG

Some very valid points you made there. I would also like to be able to substaniate the Hustler claim. I also know that 200 affiliates isn't a lot, but it is if the 200 affiliates are all like "WiredGuy"

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Personally...I would toss in Playboy Inc, and Adult.Com / ICS Entertainment, Inc. into the suit for allowing the post to stay up, as it continues to stay up to this day.

Who are you claiming is lying here?
WG

Care to expand? I didn't get that from reading the same papers.

mad sig drama

Now on the other hand... I know what I make with my sponsors. If some software developper came along telling me the sponsors I use are shaving I just couln't care less. I know my income. I tried other sponsors and I know what does best for me. Even if that means the sponsor making me the most $$ is shaving me. $$/ unique click (according to my own tracking) is all I care about.

Good point, but what is they start shaving more? I hope you would leave. You are essentially telling them here its okay to shave me, just only a little. Integrity is more important that that I think.

158. On or about August 2004, Naked Rhino and TMM entered into oral agreement concerning NATS.


so lets get this straight,there's no written agreement?

Ignorace must be bliss. This is a message board. They are not liable.

That would be news to me.

Psst.. I need to talk to you... :)

$500,000.00 gross for two sites isn't anything to scoff at. That's pretty decent, actually.

a little bird told me that this could be a very feasible scenario...

Again $$/click is all that mathers. If they start shaving more the $$/click gets down and when they reach a lower level than other sponsors they get kicked.

"XclusiveCash will also launch its own proprietary back-end tracking system, which has been in development for the past year, in the next two months. But can they recover?" -----

SHAVE ALERT SHAVE ALERT SHAVE ALERT

Call me :)

Looks like marketing....I see soo many sites saying they have the best porn on the net.(obviously this is different cause its B2B but they have competition)

no written agreement it would seem. Just a check that paid for a license up through (i assume) the end of august, perhaps longer. who knows. I'm pretty sure the oral agreement never included "if you don't behave in a way that I feel is polite I'll terminate your license before it expires".

nats could have saved themselves a huge headache by just refusing to renew the license on sept 1st...or having a written contract that allowed them to terminate for any reason.

We personally purchased non expiring licenses for a sizable, one time upfront sum because we didn't want to deal with licensing headaches and knew we'd be around long enough to make it worth it.

Weren't we suprised when suddenly our admin stopped working cause... suprise suprise, it wasnt really a perpetual license but a 3 month license that we had to "request" be updated every 3 months.

Sell me a car, I pay cash, and then make my car stop in the middle of the road every 3 months unless I get a tow into the dealer to reactivate my car? No thanks.

hey at least the good news is that if xc wins and nats goes under, all the source code is on file with nats attorney... they said so at least... right?

so Hooper, how do you specify the terms of an oral agreement, therefore determine the breach of them? It seems to me each party can claim anything at this point. Thats an interesting case to watch.

i dont remember what the legal term is... but if i say "hey i'll buy your car for $10k" and you say "ok" and then i give you a check for $10k and the memo says "purchase for your car" and you give me the car and cash the check... you can't go take the car back next month saying that we didnt have a contract.

i think the word is "implied contract"

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:implied+contract
It sounds like their lawyers are basically saying that they paid tmm every month, and tmm let them use the software every month, so by virtue of the history... so the only part that is probably really enforcable in that implied contact is the "xc pays tmm and tmm allows xc to use nats".

for sure.

LOL so naive.

Shame it has to go to the courts

ill take 50

Ha I made it into the complaint... that's awesome.. Hopefully they pick up a few more of my quotes that I added today.. :1orglaugh

Sorry, I think that's a bad example...even if the point is correct.

I think in your scenario, the problem would boil down to the WARRANTEE. One party says the warrantee is 3 months. The other party says it was a 6 month warrantee. There doesn't appear to be any dispute on payment or service, but the TERMS of the service itself. :2 cents:

Trying to break away here... gimmie 30ish :winkwink:

regardless of who I believe, regardless of who is right or wrong, regardless of what really happened and what didn't

both reputations are tarnished in this fight, and I hate to say it, I think both companies will hurt in the long run over all this

with that, I am now officially staying out of it all. This will be my last post regarding TMM vs. NR

WOW.......your fifteen minutes are here:winkwink:

I dont know if thats a good thing :)

Actually his example does not point to a warrantee situation. What he is saying is not that the car is broken, simply that the car is automatically set to disable itself every X amount of time requiring he request that the dealer re-enable it.

I was actually really surprised to hear about that particular feature of NATS on the permanent licensing.