[kickaha]

Elisabeth,


______________________________________

I dish out flak when I see faulty logic; that is how I think and speak and folks who know me will verify that.
_________________________________

Fair enough, I appreciate your candor. Again my aim is not to make decisions for anyone, but to raise different arguments and different viewpoints. Arguments and viewpoints that I do not see anyone raising. By making blanket statements we run the risk of turning things into a "witch hunt".

Throw all shopping bars into the water, if they float they are a witch!!! Burn, Burn , Burn the witch...but hey if they sink- they aren't a witch.

_________________________________________
Parasites analyze my pages. Their "subsequent action" harms me, directly and immediately.

Do you see the difference?
______________________________________

Yes, in the case of Google. Again, that was an idea storm to provoke thought.


_________________________________________
That betrayal is the pivotal issue you keep dodging, Wayne. Merchants and networks are DECEIVING thousands of affiliates and you don't see fit to comment (at least not that I've ever seen). That puzzles me ...
_______________________________

I cannot speak for merchants and networks. I have made my view quite clear and have not dodged this issue. If affiliates feel they are being betrayed then stop doing business with the one's betraying you and apply force en masse. Affiliates must take personal responsability for the people they parter with.

__________________________________________
Nope, there might be a few points of overlap but customer loyalty is an entirely different discussion from the question of how well merchants and networks are or aren't keeping their word to the affiliates who trusted them.
___________________________________________

Ok, this IS an underlying critical issue. But let's let it sit for now and revisit it in 6 months and it will become clearer.
__________________________________________
And if you haven't heard anyone defending the interests of publishers in regards to popup blockers, you haven't been hanging around in the right places. It's an issue I'd have to think about for a while, but one major difference I see is that even if a site might lose income because of someone's popup blocker....
_____________________________________________

I have not heard that *here*. People tend to gloss over the issue of pop-up blocking because it is accepted that end users are going to use this technology and they have every right to install what they choose on their browsers. We had a round-table debate about this at AffiliateForce2000 (where I and a couple of others go on record as saying users will be annoyed and will seek to regain control of their experience through technological means. I might ask Brian Clark to dig up that video.)

We could probably bring TIVO and the recording of television streams into play since it is a similiar argument, but I won't go there. But the use of TIVO and similiar technologies tell me that end users matter and they will make the choice for what best benefits them.

Does that make it right for an application to swap out links automatically, change, alter or overwrite cookies?- No. I feel that is unethical, but I use that as part of my basis for the analysis of what is a passive application and what is truly parasitic.

_____________________________________________
Here's a thought for you ... in the case of popup ads that are pay-per-action, there's no loss to the publisher because the customer wouldn't have bought anything anyway. When the ads are CPM, the publisher would experience a loss if they are blocked, but the advertiser would experience a loss if they were shown (because they are being shown to people who are not the least bit interested). Who's stealing from whom ...? One moral here is that badly targeted advertising is a waste of everyone's time and bandwidth.
___________________________________________

Technology like pop-up blockers have no way of differentiating between CPM and CPA deal structures or a CPA+CPM hybrid. I can't buy that as a defense. I do agree that badly targeted advertising is a waste, but even in the case of badly targeted advertising you get data which is not a waste.

_______________________________________
In many contexts this is a perfectly supportable line of thought. But if the thing a user wants to view/use can only exist because someone is harmed in the process of creating it or using it, what then? Child porn is an extreme example - such pictures are illegal because of the unimaginable harm caused by the very act of creating them. On a smaller scale, if someone wants to give the user something that can only exist by harming other websites, the user's desire to use that tool is not ethically supportable. In the case of a parasitic advertising application, very few shoppers see or understand the harm that is happening, so they cannot be held culpable, but the people who create or cooperate with such entities ARE culpable.
_______________________________________
Interesting line of reasoning, but I don't like the child pornography analogy. In the case of passive applications the user has a choice. We get back to the core argument- what is truly parasitic?

Is the Netscape browser predatory or unfair competition because it has a Shop button on the top of the browser? No it probably isn't because it is passive. I am simply looking for precedents here.


____________________________________
Keep in mind the importance of relationship and how it affects ethical analysis. I have a formal relationship to Amazon as their affiliate...
________________________________________

Then it would be wise to visit Alexa.com. It is easy to paint a scenario while reading the reviews on someone else's site, I could easily make the CHOICE and click on the Amazon.com button to go there and shop for books (Remember I am an untrained user- I see the convenient Amazon.com Shop button on the upper right of the bar). The person who spent many hours putting together book reviews would get *zero* credit if I did this.

But I don't see this as predatory or parasitic. Amazon is reinforcing it's brand through a 3rd party toolbar. Now if I had the Alexa toolbar installed and I clicked on an affiliate link and the toolbar overwrote that or intercepted that click- I would find that unethical.

____________________________________
At what point does "a savvy technological extension that seeks to leverage the loyalty of a consumer" become "tortious interference" in someone else's business dealings?
_______________________________________

Officially when you take legal action. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I am not a lawyer Elisabeth ( I don't even play one on TV), but I feel it becomes tortious interference when an application usurps choices from the end user.

best as always,

Wayne

Wayne Porter
V.P. Product Development
AffTrack LLC.
http://www.afftrack.com
http://www.revtrends.com
Advanced & Automated Data Analysis for Performance Marketers.

[buckworks]

Wayne, answer yes or no:

Do you believe that the affiliate whose efforts generated the sale is the one who should receive the commission?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I cannot speak for merchants and networks. I have made my view quite clear and have not dodged this issue. If affiliates feel they are being betrayed then stop doing business with the one's betraying you and apply force en masse. Affiliates must take personal responsability for the people they parter with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Brace yourself, here comes another over-the-top analogy: your reasoning is like telling a wife who is being abused in some way, "Well, just leave him." "Just leave him" is sometimes the best answer, but if it's the first thing you suggest you may be doing a disservice to the whole situation. At some point you have to say to the husband, "You should change that behaviour, it's harmful. Honor your wedding vows!" If you don't at least try that, you are neglecting something pretty important. IF the harm can be stopped, the things that are good about the relationship can flourish.

Wayne, I have more than once seen you say that affiliates should drop a merchant if they feel abused by the parasite issue ("Just leave him"). I have never seen you say to merchants, "Honor your commitments. You made a contract!" You may have said it, but I haven't seen it. Until I do, I perceive you as dodging key issues.

Some affiliates do sever relationships because of this issue, and in other cases even though we maintain the relationship, we restrict our promotions because the fruits of our efforts are likely to be pilfered.

Example: I might keep a parasite-condoning merchant on my site because their description makes good spider food, but I would not knowingly give space to such a merchant in my newsletters.

But I'm also, in my own crazy way, trying to speak out to stop the harm. If everyone involved could understand the harm and make sure that it stops, then all sorts of good things could flourish.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Technology like pop-up blockers have no way of differentiating between CPM and CPA deal structures or a CPA+CPM hybrid. I can't buy that as a defense. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wasn't making a defense, I was just asking a question that has puzzled me for a while.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Interesting line of reasoning, but I don't like the child pornography analogy. In the case of passive applications the user has a choice. We get back to the core argument- what is truly parasitic? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the user chooses to allow on their computer is a secondary issue, although it is a huge factor for practical reasons. The core issue here is the contract between the merchant and the affiliates who promote him in good faith: will the merchant honor that contract or not?

Again I ask, yes or no: Do you believe that the affiliate whose efforts generated the sale is the one who should receive the commission?

Trying to draw lines about what is or isn't parasitic is pointless unless we agree on that.

[buckworks]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I don't like the child pornography analogy. In the case of passive applications the user has a choice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you can see the point behind the analogy that the thing -- by its very nature -- cannot exist or operate without causing harm.

[kickaha]

"Again I ask, yes or no: Do you believe that the affiliate whose efforts generated the sale is the one who should receive the commission?"

Well that depends Elisabeth. Who should credit for the sale if a user clicks on a link on my site and then two weeks later the user goes to your site and buys?

Obviously we have both made contributions towards this sale. So who gets credit? By the industry defacto standard you would get credit, because your efforts closed the sale. This is how cookie methodology is handled in majority of cases.

The user has a choice to go back to my site if they want to, but your value proposition was stronger, or mine wasn't strong enough. Now if I use subterfuge or usurp control from that customer's choice and strip that sale from you then that is surely not fair.

Regarding merchant contracts- every contract is different and in the case of large affiliates most are hand negotiated.

I really don't know what merchants have promised their affiliates so I don't know if parasiteware is a part of their contractual agreement. When AU was formed I fought, with many others, long and hard to get merchants to openly disclose their contract terms and to address certain issues like cookie duration, payment, etc. I did not fight for mandatory things like merchants required to pay certain rates. This is free enterprise and people must make decisions for themselves.

I am for honoring contracts and don't feel I have dodged the issues. Do I need to remind merchants and or networks to keep their promises? I don't think so. Ethical people will honor their agreements and shouldn't need reminding.

"The core issue here is the contract between the merchant and the affiliates who promote him in good faith: will the merchant honor that contract or not?"

Agreed! If someone isn't honoring their contract with you- Don't do business with them. But the issue of what is and what is not parasitic is not clear yet. I feel the community is moving toward resolution on this.

The same for the networks. I truly believe that the three primary solution providers are working very hard to resolve the issue, but there are a lot of factors and perspectives that come into play that affiliates just don't see. Networks need "ordinary affiliates", to use your term, more than ever and they want these sites to thrive. Strategically and long term they must have you to continue to offer value to their merchant clients. But if you feel your network or merchant has failed their promise to you, vote with your actions. I am merely being pragmatic here. I am not against smaller affiliates, I am very much for the small and innovative players.


I am not touching the wife-abuse analogy or stay-in-the-marriage analogy. Like that of child pornography it is not only over-the-top, it is too emotionally charged to make a good comparison.

best,
Wayne

Wayne Porter
V.P. Product Development
AffTrack LLC.
http://www.afftrack.com
http://www.revtrends.com
Advanced & Automated Data Analysis for Performance Marketers.

[Cedric]

>>Well that depends Elisabeth. Who should credit for the sale if a user clicks on a link on my site and then two weeks later the user goes to your site and buys?<<

The difference is found in the question, "Who gets to make use of my site?"

The end-user can use my site to do all the research they want and never ever buy from me. They can go coupon hunting, remember their "shopper's reward program" and buy from there, or get in their car and drive to a brick and mortar for their purchase.

My competitors, however, do not get to use my site, ever. For these applications to work, they have to read the information at my site and use that information to blink or pop the right message to the customer. I'm saying that is wrong. I'm saying they have to be blind when their member is on my site.

>>Obviously we have both made contributions towards this sale.<<

Yes, but your contribution relies on reading my site -- without me, you would have made NO contribution. You're dependent on my work for your sale, but I am not in partnership with you.

I, on the other hand, made all contributions on my own. When you can make the sales on your own, you can have the commission.

[edited to add: and blind when the end-user clicks from my site to the merchant's site, there should be no loophole that allows the competitor to use my successful call to action.]

-------
Dawn is nature's way of telling you to go to bed.

[This message was edited by Cedric on September 28, 2002 at 08:17 PM.]

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

Wayne,

Are you saying that if the link interception is not automatic, it's okay?

1) Yes!
2) NO!

<font size="2" face="Verdana">Haiko


The secret of success is constancy of purpose. ~ Disraeli</font></p>

[mikeyjake]

Said Wayne Porter:

"I have tested FatWallet's Toolbar and I have seen nothing predatory about how it performs. There is no link interception, redirection or profiling."

Should I be concerned given that FatWallet is listed as a client of Wayne's company?

http://www.afftrack.com/clients/clients.asp

If nothing else, Wayne should probably have admitted this in his first post.

Has anyone not making money from FatWallet given the new tactics the ok? Its sounds awful predatory to me.

Mike Jacobs

--------------------------------------
WebMogul - Online Marketing that Works
www.webmogul.com (http://www.webmogul.com)
--------------------------------------

[FatWallet]

I've been a longtime customer of AffTrack - And to answer the question....

Haiko already commented his opinion on the toolbar, and I've never given him a penny.

[kickaha]

"Should I be concerned given that FatWallet is listed as a client of Wayne's company?

http://www.afftrack.com/clients/clients.asp

If nothing else, Wayne should probably have admitted this in his first post.

Has anyone not making money from FatWallet given the new tactics the ok? Its sounds awful predatory to me."

I prominently post my signature file after 99% of my posts, use my real name, and the AffTrack site openly lists Tim Storm as a client in our testimonials. It doesn't take any real detective work to figure that out.

thanks,

-Wayne

Wayne Porter
V.P. Product Development
AffTrack LLC.
http://www.afftrack.com
http://www.revtrends.com
Advanced & Automated Data Analysis for Performance Marketers.

[kickaha]

Haiko,

After much thought-Yes. I think passive toolbars are fine because affiliates do not own the license that is granted by the user's browser. Meaning the end user has a right to put whatever they want in the area around the browsing window because it is their browsing window.

Webmasters are granting users LIMITED RIGHTS to their content by allowing them to view a page and store that page in their cache. I suppose they could state that these rights do NOT allow users to view their sites with toolbars attached to their browser, but I think users will simply ignore that since it is their own browser.

Intercepting links is NOT ok in my book because that link is the technically the property of the affiliate and intercepting that link is blatant interference.

These are my own personal views.

best,
Wayne

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

What I said was

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I can confirm that Tim's toolbar is _NOT_ predatory!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I can say that it is clean, and that I seriously doubt, knowing Tim, that it will ever be dirty!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

However with the possibility of implementation of standards, my position is to outlaw all plug-ins, toolbars and other appropriate technology that could pilfer affiliate traffic. Not because of Tim or his toolbar but because of the others.

Tim actually has the one thing the parasites don't have ... and that is a real affinity group and following, I really don't see the removal of the value added tool for his group affecting his business, for it is built on a real model and trust [of his members].

<font size="2" face="Verdana">Haiko


The secret of success is constancy of purpose. ~ Disraeli</font></p>

[FatWallet]

As I said before, I'd applaud an outright BAN of all client side applications, but I don't see it happening.

Here is my $.02 view - From a contract perspective, the merchants only pay affiliates for sales generated from a user session they started - Since there are no revenues until a sale is made, TECHNICALLY, there is no loss of revenue to an affiliate if another affiliate gets the last link in (as long as there is automatic link re-routing)

I suspect that we will soon see a standard set by the networks, and like it or not, we will all be left to compete on a more clearly defined playing field.

[mikeyjake]

Said Wayne:
"I prominently post my signature file after 99% of my posts, use my real name, and the AffTrack site openly lists Tim Storm as a client in our testimonials. It doesn't take any real detective work to figure that out."

I know, that is how I found it out. But, I still think you should have admitted it up front when you started "reviewing" them.

I only found this out because I saw the afftrack link and, after having had some dealings with them months (years, actually) back, I wanted to see what they were up to.

I'm not saying it takes detective work to figure this out, but anyone writing as much as you did on the topic, including a "review", should have IMHO fessed up to that.

When I read the review the first time, I took it as an objective evaluation. I realize that that was wrong, and I think you should make sure others don't make the same mistake (which would be very easy for anyone who doesn't click on everyone's URLs).

Anyone with 5 seconds and a Net connection can find out that CNBC and company X share the same parent... but that doesn't stop CNBC admitting this every time they cover such a company. And I think their "reporting" is much more objective than yours.

That just my HO...

Mike Jacobs

--------------------------------------
WebMogul - Online Marketing that Works
www.webmogul.com (http://www.webmogul.com)
--------------------------------------

[edited because of a typo]

[kickaha]

Mike,

"...objective evaluation"

My evaluation is still objective and whether or not FatWallet is a client does not impact my evaluation.

If I felt FatWallet was predatory I would have said so, and I would have taken Tim Storm to task. Tim actually solicited feedback from me, and others, before he launched his toolbar because he wanted to take great pains not to become a parasitic application.

Normally I do add disclaimers to my articles (i.e. Revenews) if there is any potential conflict of interest because it is a formal article and goes out into Moreover news feeds. Because it was a message board post and a rather informal post it really didn't cross my mind.

My stance on shopping toolbars stays the same and consistent as it always has. But thanks for calling attention to it- I will be more careful with potential conflicts in the future.

regards,
Wayne

Wayne Porter
V.P. Product Development
AffTrack LLC.
http://www.afftrack.com
http://www.revtrends.com
Advanced & Automated Data Analysis for Performance Marketers.

[buckworks]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> From a contract perspective, the merchants only pay affiliates for sales generated from a user session they started - Since there are no revenues until a sale is made, TECHNICALLY, there is no loss of revenue to an affiliate if another affiliate gets the last link in (as long as there is automatic link re-routing) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Technically, schmechnically. That's like saying that when a bully steals the money from little Billy's lemonade stand, Billy didn't really suffer any loss of income because he hadn't put it in his pocket yet.

If my promotion initiates a user session with a merchant, or if a user is on one of my pages or reading my newsletter that intends to lead to a user session with the merchant, MORALLY no one else has the right to interrupt that.

Discussing whether an interruption is achieved automatically or by inducing the shopper to do something is like discussing whether a pickpocket should stand two feet away instead of one.

[CelticOneDesign]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne Porter- AffTrack:
Haiko,

After much thought-Yes. I think passive toolbars are fine because affiliates do not own the license that is granted by the user's browser. Meaning the end user has a right to put whatever they want in the area around the browsing window because it is their browsing window.

Webmasters are granting users LIMITED RIGHTS to their content by allowing them to view a page and store that page in their cache. I suppose they could state that these rights do NOT allow users to view their sites with toolbars attached to their browser, but I think users will simply ignore that since it is their own browser.

Wayne<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Fat Wallet ClassID
778C8BD6-0C4F-4199-AC8E-F7E5AD76020E
Insert that in Andrew Clover's parasite detector.
End of debate.

[oldgeek]

NOTE: Reference here to FW/FC is simply for example and because FW/FC is the "topic" of the thread. These comments are not directed specifically at Mr. Storm or anyone else in particular.

----------

The point is not whether a "link" is redirected, hijacked, etc. but whether "traffic" is.

If you or I "promote" FW/FC (or any other) in any way, even if in the context of a negative review, comment, etc., then we have no place or cause to object to any traffic FW/FC derives from same.

But ... if FW/FC (or any other) creates traffic for itself as a response to "anything" on another site, it is uninvited, unwelcome, intrusive, unethical, and unacceptable. It is without permission and it is traffic hijacking from the owner of the site. The end user's actions have no bearing.

Suppose I had a toolbar that, whenever some accessed an Op/Ed page of a major newspaper, popped up a button which said "More About This" and which, when clicked, redirected to my site without the original publisher's permission (or even knowledge). Even if no financial transaction occurs, it is still theft - taking something that belongs to someone else without permission - in this case traffic.

It would be like car dealer "A" sending a salesperson to dealership "B" selling the same brand, with the intent of salesperson "A" walking up to any customer talking to salesperson "B" and saying "Come with me and I'll give you a better deal." I'm sure any halfway competent commercial attorney could cite any number of cases finding against the "interloper" without breaking a sweat.

The only difference is that in the b&m world, the action of the interloper is clearly visible to the victim, and thus the onus to act (to sue for damages or bring charges) can be fairly placed on the victim. If the victim chooses not to pursue the matter, so be it.

The significant difference on the web is that the victimized web owner has no way of knowing when such action occurs, and thus no way of documenting the incursion, or of taking action against the interloper.

Since as we all know, and as has been discussed at length here, the "effective cookie" for an affiliate sale will always belong to the last link clicked. Therefore, deriving a click - even just on a button that says "Tell Me More" - without the original web owner's knowledge and consent constitutes interference regardless of the customer's action.

-- Digression starts here --

One possible solution is for merchants to not overwrite their own cookies. If you say I have "10 return days" (or any other number) then you should not overwrite my cookie with one for another affiliate. You should only write a new cookie when mine has "expired" - which is easily known by whether or not the user's browser returns an existing, unexpired cookie in the request header.

And there is nothing unfair to the affiliates about this. In this scenario the desirable programs to join become those with shorter rather than longer cookie durations. A longer cookie ties the customer to a specific affiliate longer, and reduces opportunity for others, while shorter cookies give more affiliates the chance to "convert the click".

In fact, from the merchant's point of view a "session" cookie becomes the most meaningful, since if affiliate 1 fails to convert, the cookie disappears when the user shuts down the browser. The next time the user goes online, all affiliates again start with an even chance of "making the sale".

-- End of digression --

But back to the first topic ...

If the toolbar "appears" on my site without my expressed prior permission, it constitutes interference regardless of the "betterness" of the alternate "deal", regardless of the customer's wants, needs, desires, or actions, and regardless of the outcome - that is regardless of whether a sale would have taken place on my site, susbequently takes place on another site, or not at all.

The "real world" argument is nothing more or less than denial, rationalization and obsfucation on the part of those who know that what they are doing is inherently wrong, even if it is not explicity illegal.

In other words, my web site constitutes the "premises" of my business. When the toolbar appears, regardless of how or why, without my explicit consent, it is interference with my business, trespass in my place of business, and theft of my traffic.

Any merchant or network who knows this happens and fails to act to stop it is an accessory before the fact. If they go ahead and pay the traffic hijacker, they are an accessory after the fact as well.

And that's the truth. Pfffft.

Opportunity knocks but once ... then runs off and hides behind the shrubbery.

[Andy Rodriguez]

Very, very well said !!

Andy Rodriguez,
Online Advertising / Affiliate Marketing Manager

TigerDirect.com
P: (305) 415-2313
E: andy.rodriguez@tigerdirect.com
ICQ: 175010
AIM: miamitigercub

[eaglefire]

Agreed - well said Old Geek!

{

Every challenge is a potential act of power. ~ eaglefire

[kickaha]

OldGeek,

Good arguments and professionally made.

You said, "If the toolbar "appears" on my site without my expressed prior permission, it constitutes interference regardless of the "betterness" of the alternate "deal", regardless of the customer's wants, needs, desires, or actions, and regardless of the outcome - that is regardless of whether a sale would have taken place on my site, susbequently takes place on another site, or not at all.
"


This is the key issue. Toolbars do not appear on your site. They appear on the user's browser. Webmaster's do not own or have rights when it comes to real estate inside the browser.

It is generally accepted that when surfers view your page you are granting them a limited right to view your page and actually store your page since it is being written to their computer and possibly cached.

The only way to get around this is NOT to grant user's the limited rights needed when a browser comes to your site. Which obviously won't work.

Somewhere along the line people have gotten the idea that they control people's browsers. This is not the case.

However, overwriting of someone's links is unethical since the link itself is a limited license granted BY the network or the merchant. (Technically I don't think affiliate's even own their own affiliate links unless ownership is granted.)

Popping up ads or content on someone's pages, like the case of Gator, or altering the appearance of a page ie. Ezula or even using time-delayed pop-ups could be seen as a copyright issue. It is unclear who and from where this ad is shown and this ad interferes with the naturally viewing of the web page.



best,
Wayne

Wayne Porter
V.P. Product Development
AffTrack LLC.
http://www.afftrack.com
http://www.revtrends.com
Advanced & Automated Data Analysis for Performance Marketers.

[ecomcity]

OldGeek wraps in all up in a nutshell leaving no room for even a lawyer to weasel out of the obvious. The intent is to steal traffic on the hopes of receiving monitary rewards for the theft.

Why would someone want to steal my targeted traffic? The ecommcerce parasites have shown us all they can ..but why? The answer is most likely they aren't willing to expend the time -money -or creativity necessary to duplicate it at their own web site.

The same question comes up daily for all parties involved in a petty theft case while a Judge passes sentence. The shop lifter was too lazy to expend the effort to earn the money to buy the product or in many cases was unwilling to open his wallet and pay for it when it was just sitting there begging to be stolen. No one was watching!

WebMaster Mike

[icicle]

>And that's the truth. Pfffft.

I think I'm in love.


I

[ecomcity]

Before the Web Ink has dried on ethical logic up comes someone with a clouded adjenda. Wayne your sudden appearence here only has awaken our resolve to fight against the obvious injuctice of any technology or competitor interferring with OUR VISITOR. Whether they hijack traffic from the the browser peripheral borders or directly from the page content we did not invite them to interlope on our business opportunity.

I have a wholesale club which pays 25.00 per year just to access those pages and receive private offer e-mails. ALL visitors to those pages require a special user name and password ..plus a $25.00 annual fee. Does your non-dues paying parasite buddies deserve or are allowed access into this private area to popup meaningless buyer alerts to these wholesale sources? Can they cherry pick the e-mail offers under your ethics.

Let's go one further, since spywarez is a common hidden install in most of these parasite programs. If I have one of these installed on my system and enter the secure merchant server by password/username not only do they read the order information content but their backdoor call-home script easily can be programmed to pilfer all the credit card customer information files from that secure site. If you think this parasitic spyware activity is just hypothetical then take your reporters notepad and interview the FBI's Cybercrime unit.

The traffic thievery is obvious and cannot be justified by you or any network. The threat for further mischief like affiliate ID# swapping is in plain view right here at ABW to show this is not conjecture. The same folks were involved ..twice. Now since all the capability of parasiteware is hidden from any documentation sources outside of the companies developing them these traffic thieves have methology to steal much more.

I do not trust these cyber thieves -their management or their secret network of BHO plug-in feature programmers who work part time when not hacking into systems for fun. Morpheus and others bought this technology overseas they didn't develop it themselves. They just tweak it and turn on and off the features.

You consider them and the Dupers as your prime customer base and when ..not if..they get kicked off the networks or start their own merchant network your out some paying customers. IS Linkshare, CJ or BeFree one of your software customers? Nor will any of these stay in your stable when they crank up their own copycat network.

WebMaster Mike

[Ebudae]

OldGeek, well said!!

Vicki /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Today, we say that when you pick a fight with any of us, you pick a fight with all of us! And that when you push us, we will push back! AFL-CIO

[mousejockey]

Well said 'OldGeek'

As our websites constitute our place of business
any toolbar/incentive to lure customers away from our business has to be construed as 'interference'

That's it in a nutshell isn't it?

"I haven't failed, I've just found 10,000 reasons why it doesn't work"
Thomas Edison