Quote:
Originally Posted by Due
Also promotion via keyword hijacking adware does not appear to be in the TOS.
Would you have looked at it different if that is how it was done ?
At the same time please keep in mind that adware is not actual illegal software but is also operating in the grey area as it's usually designed to take advantage of those from who you are superior (in other words, the stupid surfers)
If you deal with the law then you have to be very specific if you start specifying certain things. In this case it seems to be neither allowed nor disallowed.
|
i hear your point. what people have to understand is that adult was built on a foundation of a "free for all". this industry has grown past that which is why people with no business background are having a tough time surviving. brick and mortar companies learned a long time ago that when it comes to business, contracts rule..
any judge will tell you that ignorance is no excuse when it comes to law..
the issue here, imho, goes to the core of contractual law. if you run a business, then you need to run your company as a business.
i deal with a lot of mainstream affiliate programs and they are all very clear when it comes to their terms and their clients terms.
i dont have a single personal issue here with d. what i do have an issue with is that shoehorn acted within d's tos (which doesnt really exist).
in a court of law, this is a cut and dry case...
