Top Bucks Recent Injunction Compliance Mail

[Mediaguy]

Originally Posted by Shelleehale

Top Bucks sent out this recent injunction request but what really got me was that they failed to mention that you must obey it or you could be fined, go to jail, or worst.

I don't see in any of this stuff I've read now where an affiliate who doesn't spam, hasn't spammed, and acknowledges these facts by signing the "Acknowledgement" of compliance to TopBucks' compliance to no-spam policy and law will land anyone in jail (or worst? you mean worse? what would be worse than jail? they're not taking spammers to Guatanamo Bay are they?!? lol )

.

[Sexyteaser]

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

I don't see in any of this stuff I've read now where an affiliate who doesn't spam, hasn't spammed, and acknowledges these facts by signing the "Acknowledgement" of compliance to TopBucks' compliance to no-spam policy and law will land anyone in jail (or worst? you mean worse? what would be worse than jail? they're not taking spammers to Guatanamo Bay are they?!? lol )

.

No they take them to Spamtanamo.

Cyberheat's attorney made this request:

"The overriding theory of the DOJ's case - absolute liability for the owners of websites advertised by email - seemed especially ominous to Cyberheat's attorney Pete Wellborn, who stated, ‘Any company with an Internet presence should run - not walk - to the office of their nearest congressperson and demand congressional action to prevent and eliminate this absurdly tortuous construction of CAN-SPAM by the government.'


I just added that we should also ask that they stop wasting our tax payer dollars to find potential obscenity cases that are thrown out for being unconstitutional; I was not implying the two points (Spam/Obscenity) were connected in this case.

I can't be the only one concerned or interested in a proactive approach to protect my interests.

As the industry starts to feel the pressure of an economic turn and capital is diminshing it is not a coincidence that these cases are hitting now. Don't you see how much easier it is for the DOJ and AG's to go up against these Companies now that they are not as wealthy as they used to be and across boarders with the new alliances they are not as limited as before.

[2MuchMark]

Shellee,

I don't really understand what the problem is. Topbucks has a no-spam policy and will cut anyone off who doesn't obey this policy. GOOD.

Topbucks takes the time to email their affiliates about the latest FTC dealings and instructions on how to remain Legal, and to keep their accounts in good standing. GREAT!

The government is doing something about SPAM and which accounts for something like 80% of all email traffic and costs ISP's Billions in wasted bandwidth, and costs Billions more in wasted time. FANTASTIC!

Your posts Shellee seem more about creating drama or to serve some personal pleasure than anything else. For example, you said :

Top Bucks is just one more company now under the watchful eye or the Federal Prosecutors office after settling rather than fighting their violation

What does "Watchful eye" mean? You think the FTP have setup a special task force now just to watch what TopBucks is doing 24/7? Have they tapped their phones? Are they sniffing their packets? What? How do you know that this is hapening?

And why wouldn't they prefer to settle than fight? It's cheaper #1, and #2 it lets them get back to business sooner.

Like Rhetorical said, you need to stop "shooting from the hip". And as Sarettah said :

ShelleeHole is, imho, an enemy of this biz. (a clueless enemy perhaps, but still an enemy)

I have to agree. Posts like this make you seem much more intent on bringing the industry down than doing anything to help. imho, of course.

[Sexyteaser]

Original post about this from 3/2007 http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showt...ing+affiliates

TUCSON, Ariz. — Cyberheat apparently has dodged maximum penalties over alleged Can-Spam violations after a federal judge ordered the Justice Department and the online adult company to hammer out an agreement.


In a case at U.S. District Court in Tucson, Cyberheat, which operates webmaster program TopBucks, is defending itself against charges by the Federal Trade Commission over sexually explicit spam messages sent by its affilates. It contends it can't control the actions of affiliates. If convicted, Cyberheat would be liable for $11,000 in civil penalties for each spam email, or $7.1 million. It would be the largest fine levied against an online adult company.

Rest of the story


The problem is that as a condition of the settlement Cyberheat had to shut down and Top Bucks can exist under intense scrutiny with a whole lot of conditions...

[Mediaguy]

No no no! Shellee read your own copy-pastes!! Read and PROCESS the information...

Originally Posted by Shelleehale

Original post about this from 3/2007 http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showt...ing+affiliates

Why did you link to this? It's a repeat of this post but with no more info.

Originally Posted by Shelleehale

TUCSON, Ariz. — Cyberheat apparently has dodged maximum penalties over alleged Can-Spam violations after a federal judge ordered the Justice Department and the online adult company to hammer out an agreement.

In a case at U.S. District Court in Tucson, Cyberheat, which operates webmaster program TopBucks, is defending itself against charges by the Federal Trade Commission over sexually explicit spam messages sent by its affilates. It contends it can't control the actions of affiliates. If convicted, Cyberheat would be liable for $11,000 in civil penalties for each spam email, or $7.1 million. It would be the largest fine levied against an online adult company.

Rest of the story

In case someone is (again) misled by you posting this year-old pre-settlement version of this case, let me point out that there's NO REASON to post this now: it's out of date, irrelevant to reality, disregards the facts of the present and only reported the possible or theoretical outcome of the case before it ever hit the dockets.

Originally Posted by Shelleehale

The problem is that as a condition of the settlement Cyberheat had to shut down and Top Bucks can exist under intense scrutiny with a whole lot of conditions...

WHERE did you read that a condition of the settlement was that Cyberheat had to shut it's doors?

You didn't.

It's not shutting down. The settlement as it stands was supposedly "made possible by Cyberheat's planned departure from the business of owning and promoting websites".

Where did you read that TopBucks can "exist under intense scrutiny with a whole lot of conditions"?!?!?

The same conditions prevail as before (since everyone is "barred from future violations of the CAN-SPAM Act" anway lol) and supposedly Cyberheat/TopBucks will have to somehow monitor affiliates more closely.
That's about it. But since there's no way to prevent or know that an idiot will buy an email harvest and spam it before he actually does it, the "conditions" mean nothing but business as usual.

There's no other "lot of conditions" here.

Why spread manure where nothing will grow?

What's the point of trying to prey on people's fears?

There wasn't a positive peep out of you when Seth and SoulCash completely WON (did not settle, people, but outright WON) against the government and created an important precedent that was GOOD for the industry and fair to program owners.

Injecting inuendo and alarmist outcry to any piece of information that can be bent to the purpose, posting with the assumption that no one will read to the source, and spreading misinformation about other companies is no way to become an industry beacon.

Why do you only trumpet doom?

What are you selling?

.

[Mediaguy]

Originally Posted by Shelleehale

No they take them to Spamtanamo.

lol yeah don't we all wish there was one!

Originally Posted by Shelleehale

Cyberheat's attorney made this request:

"The overriding theory of the DOJ's case - absolute liability for the owners of websites advertised by email - seemed especially ominous to Cyberheat's attorney Pete Wellborn, who stated, ‘Any company with an Internet presence should run - not walk - to the office of their nearest congressperson and demand congressional action to prevent and eliminate this absurdly tortuous construction of CAN-SPAM by the government.'

Well it sure would set a dangerous precedent to hold a corporate entity responsible for people who violate terms of use when they're acting as unlicensed third-party contractors, be it promotional or what not.

Originally Posted by Shelleehale

I just added that we should also ask that they stop wasting our tax payer dollars to find potential obscenity cases that are thrown out for being unconstitutional; I was not implying the two points (Spam/Obscenity) were connected in this case.

Only in their uselessness and as wasteful expenditures (though making someone burn money defending themselves over vacuous accusations can be a good method of harrassment if you can afford it - and the DoJ can).

Originally Posted by Shelleehale

I can't be the only one concerned or interested in a proactive approach to protect my interests.

It is NOT proactive to state that TopBucks "failed to mention that you must obey it or you could be fined, go to jail, or worst" if one didn't sign the acknowledgement.

At best it's highly misinterpreted, and that is using the utmost consideration in assuming you read the thing quickly, mistook what was written, did not read through to the subsequent documents, and went on to post impulsively.

Originally Posted by Shelleehale

As the industry starts to feel the pressure of an economic turn and capital is diminshing it is not a coincidence that these cases are hitting now.

This is in no way a barometre of the state of things. Cyberheat was first taken to court over the actions of its affiliate/s three years ago. If you read the rest of it and the articles in the industry press, it's obvious Topbucks/Cyberheat decided to settle because it was the most opportune and expeditious time, not to mention the least expensive - also, as they mentioned, it prevented setting dangerous precedents.

Had they gone to court, they would have won; but the government would have held it up for as long as it took for them to go broke. No one has as much money to waste as the Bush administration.

Originally Posted by Shelleehale

Don't you see how much easier it is for the DOJ and AG's to go up against these Companies now that they are not as wealthy as they used to be and across boarders with the new alliances they are not as limited as before.

There's no trend here. The industry trend-wise is consolidating, big companies getting bigger and richer, in effect becoming defense funds against specious prosecutions from agencies such as the DoJ.

Most officers and policy drivers, judges & prosecutors, defense lawyers and the like, have little or no inkling of internet technology or methodology. It's little surprise that in wanting to prosecute those responsible for spam, they overshot the actual guilty parties and attacked the holding company for the program the affiliates were trying to promote.

But basically there's nowhere any indication of what you claimed as a threat to the liberty and potential incarceration (or waterboarding) of TopBucks affiliates.