Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    469
    Todd,

    Let me offer a hypothetical situation (that will perhaps turn out not to be so hypothetical):

    A software download, otherwise apparently substantially in compliance with applicable CJ and merchant rules, receives some installations that can be proven (beyond doubt) to be attributed to installation through security holes (no notice to users, no consent from users). However installed, the download invokes CJ affiliate links so as to claim commissions from CJ merchants.

    What does CJ do in response? If the software download can just blame a "rogue distributor," and if CJ endorses this response, then the software provider gets away with the nonconsensual installations -- and CJ merchants get asked to pay commissions not fairly earned. However, I also can't say I expect CJ to terminate the software provider altogether.

    What difference if the nonconsensual installations can be shown to be a pattern or practice continuing over an extended period?


    Ben

  2. #2
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,403
    It is always the same story. If you are not saying definitively "no parasites" and you allow "a little bit of parasites" then the parasites find a way to blame the patience you have. When will cj.com definitively say " no parasites at all"!

    carneol

    p.S.: Ben I do not doubt that you have found what you are saying here.

  3. #3
    Full Member Travelin Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    409
    Excellent question Ben! I'd love to see the answer on this.

    quote:
    Originally posted by carneol:
    When will cj.com definitively say " no parasites at all"!



    Answer: When pigs fly. IMO there is too much of an effect on the bottom line for CJ to wipe out parasites.
    Travelin' Man

    "If you don't know where you are going, any road will lead you there." -- unknown

  4. #4
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Ben you have to realize non-consentual installs are the rule ...not the exception. Infestation (and re-infestation) is the name of the BHO game and ALL networks turn a blind eye to how the commission thieves hijack eyeballs.

    The networks could BANN all BHO's who use 3rd party install partnerships forcing these wanks to be 100% responsible for their "incented" consentual membership. The rogues like Gator -WhenU and 180Solutions cannot entice a single consentual downloader so they resort to hidden installs and bundling.
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

    "What have you done today to put real value into a referral click...from a shoppers viewpoint!"

  5. #5
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    I think you pretty much answered your own question:

    quote:
    the software download can just blame a "rogue distributor," and if CJ endorses this response, then the software provider gets away with the nonconsensual installations

  6. #6
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    469
    I fully understand that most software downloads don't entail meaningful informed consent. Certainly that's the case with Gator's length, confusing 63-page license. See my recent analysis of the license.

    But my first post refers to a different sense in which software gets installed without informed consent: Installation without any consent whatsoever and, for that matter, also without any notice whatsoever. Lawyers can bicker about what exactly constitutes "consent", when a lengthy document includes tricky provisions. But when no consent at all is sought or received, clearly no consent occurred. Thta's what my first post refers to -- a clear violation of CJ rules, but one for which (so far as I know, though I hope will yet tell me I'm wrong) CJ doesn't promptly take decisive action.

  7. #7
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,403
    Ben: what Mike said!

    carneol

  8. #8
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    469
    Note that my post was, as carneol guessed, more than speculative. See Video: Ebates Installed through Security Holes, showing Ebates Moe Money Maker installed through IE vulnerabilities, without any notice or consent whatsoever.

    Todd, what is CJ's response? What, if anything, will CJ do?

  9. #9
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,403
    Ben, I think that you will not get an answer from Todd. What you are showing is definitvely not only unethical, it is illegal. Here in Europe we could sue ebates on that an win every suit.

    carneol

  10. #10
    Affiliate Manager Allen Nance's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Colorado River, Bullhead City AZ
    Posts
    1,604
    Just a question Ben,

    Have you filed a formal coc complaint with the networks about this?

    Allen

  11. #11
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    469
    Good point. I just submitted complaints to CJ and LS.

  12. #12
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    469
    quote:
    Originally posted by Ben Edelman:
    Good point. I just submitted complaints to CJ and LS.
    Replying to my own post:

    I sent in the LinkShare complaint and, a minute later, received back not one but two bounce messages. They're of the "out of the office" variety: It seems at least 2 members of the LinkShare compliance team are out of the office. Maybe the team has more than 2 people, in which case they'll review my submission promptly anyway. Maybe not. Either way, it's not exactly professional to send out-of-the-office bounces in response to a submission to a role (non-named-individual) account.

  13. #13
    15 years and counting
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    6,121
    Ben, you didn't know the LinkShare compliance team was invited at the eBates Christmas Party?

  14. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. HIPAA Compliant Web Hosting
    By Melanie in forum LiquidWeb
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 19th, 2013, 10:57 AM
  2. How important is it for a merchant to be P3P compliant?
    By RSnapper in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 7th, 2008, 11:12 AM
  3. Being W3C compliant
    By Cav in forum Programming / Datafeeds / Tools
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 18th, 2008, 05:32 PM
  4. Matt Cutts On Being W3 Compliant
    By Trust in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 3rd, 2006, 08:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •