Lightspeed domain policy

[Martin3]

Steve just posted in the other thread he's now open for debate on the topic. Thought I start a new thread on it since the other one is mostly filled with people either ass kissing or bashing unnecessarily.

I have close to 100 model/site name variations and typo domains. It's something I started testing with a couple months ago and recently have been doing aggressively. Sites are easy to build, require little maintenance, and can convert at 1:50 or better.

I talked to Steve about it the other day over icq before it became a big deal on the boards, and he mentioned it was all because of one guy with a tawny stone site that was using it to promote other sponsors. This obviously isn't a good thing but I feel it may be a bit of an over reaction on Lightspeeds part to stop allowing it because of a few bad people. It would be a bit like pulling all FHG's because of CJ sites.

So, if other affiliates that like to use domains for free site/seo work could weight with their views, Steve states his concerns, and everyone can stay civil about the matter we might actually get some where. The way the other thread was headed it wasn't likely to accomplish much I thought a fresh start was in order.

[Sly]

I have hundreds of similar domains. No sponsor has ever given me a hard time.

[emthree]

I agree.
Cant let one person fuck it up for everyone.

[squishypimp]

interesting to see what happens with this.

[OG LennyT]

Originally Posted by squishypimp

interesting to see what happens with this.

shut up you fucking shit stain

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by Martin3

I talked to Steve about it the other day over icq before it became a big deal on the boards, and he mentioned it was all because of one guy with a tawny stone site that was using it to promote other sponsors. This obviously isn't a good thing but I feel it may be a bit of an over reaction on Lightspeeds part to stop allowing it because of a few bad people. It would be a bit like pulling all FHG's because of CJ sites.

So, if other affiliates that like to use domains for free site/seo work could weight with their views, Steve states his concerns, and everyone can stay civil about the matter we might actually get some where. The way the other thread was headed it wasn't likely to accomplish much I thought a fresh start was in order.

Maybe there's still more to it? Wouldn't it just encourage more people who already have the domains to promote something else or park them instead? Once they discover Steve doesn't want to pay them if they promote his sites with the names anyway. I'm not sure I follow how the policy discourages anyone from anything except promoting LS sites.

I do understand there are a lot of variables to consider and don't envy him the catch-22 it poses.

Where can a compromise exist? Maybe he can have part of the affiliate agreement include the forfeiture of any domains containing Lightspeed girls upon termination from the program and forbid the use of these domains to promote anything else.

[Dveron]

Originally Posted by dvd316

shut up you fucking shit stain

[fris]

know plenty of people with variations of paysite names.

[L-Pink]

Are any of the variation sites annoying customers with pop-ups and shit Steve doesn't want to be associated with?

[polish_aristocrat]

why a new thread about it if there's already one with 165 replies?

[SteveLightspeed]

Originally Posted by Brujah

Maybe there's still more to it? Wouldn't it just encourage more people who already have the domains to promote something else or park them instead? Once they discover Steve doesn't want to pay them if they promote his sites with the names anyway. I'm not sure I follow how the policy discourages anyone from anything except promoting LS sites.

I do understand there are a lot of variables to consider and don't envy him the catch-22 it poses.

Where can a compromise exist? Maybe he can have part of the affiliate agreement include the forfeiture of any domains containing Lightspeed girls upon termination from the program and forbid the use of these domains to promote anything else.

Brujah, for the record, I've NEVER ONCE withheld a payment from ANYONE. When we've had issues with affiliates, we do our best to work it out with them.

I'm exhausted here. I'll be back to this thread tomorrow to finish it.

[V_RocKs]

I was told a story...

"I worked for a catering company when I was younger. The company often did catering for events in many different banquette rooms at once. The rule was that you can eat the left overs (preferable untouched (unordered ones)) from your guests only. So sometimes you got fillet minion and other times you got meatloaf. Someone got meatloaf for a month straight and had enough and complained. The owner didn't tell us all we couldn't eat the food anymore, he fired the asshole who couldn't stop crying all the damn time."

When I heard that story I was watching my boss fire a coworker.

Now, why was he firing my coworker? Because I have worn VANS or Sketchers my entire life. And I was supposed to be wearing a shineable leather shoe. But my performance wasn't hindered and many guests asked for me by posing the question, "Can we get that guy that wears the different shoe?"

Sometimes you get a bad apple in the bunch, but it doesn't mean you can't bake a pie with the rest of them.

Keep on baking those delicious pies, Steve!

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

Sometimes you get a bad apple in the bunch, but it doesn't mean you can't bake a pie with the rest of them.

Did you read the first post? This thread was supposed to be about HELPING Steve by discussing his proposed domain policy changes in a positive way. Your sycophantic nonsense isn't going to contribute to that purpose and only serve to stir shit up again. Do that in the other thread?

***

Steve, I believe you 100% about affiliate payment. My comment wasn't a jab at you or your policy. I was only saying an affiliate might get the impression that you won't pay him for promoting LS if he uses a domain that violates your domain policy.

I'm glad that you're considering compromises and hope this discussion can continue. As you can see by my previous post, I was thinking along the same line you were with the revised domain policy too.

[DarkJedi]

Originally Posted by SteveLightspeed

Brujah, for the record, I've NEVER ONCE withheld a payment from ANYONE. When we've had issues with affiliates, we do our best to work it out with them.

I'm exhausted here. I'll be back to this thread tomorrow to finish it.

Well, thats the impression that you and Sleazy Dream give: "Do't fuck with Steve Lightspeed, he will sue your ass off, take all your domains and destroy your whole business by a few discreet phone calls."

[SteveLightspeed]

Originally Posted by DarkJedi

Well, thats the impression that you and Sleazy Dream give: "Do't fuck with Steve Lightspeed, he will sue your ass off, take all your domains and destroy your whole business by a few discreet phone calls."

I've heard I can walk on water and leap tall buildings too. For the record, I've never used "a favor" to fuck someone else over. I can fight my own battles.

[V_RocKs]

Originally Posted by Brujah

Did you read the first post? This thread was supposed to be about HELPING Steve by discussing his proposed domain policy changes in a positive way. Your sycophantic nonsense isn't going to contribute to that purpose and only serve to stir shit up again. Do that in the other thread?

Did you even notice that I wasn't talking about the original post? Did you even notice that the original post and I have the same attitude towards trademarked domains? I own trademarked domains.. HotelHeiress.in for one... XPAYS lets me keep it because I promote Paris Hilton through their program on it.

The only controversial thing I posted is that Steve should shitcan affiliates who bitch like little babies... I never said the original poster was a bitch or a baby, and I never said I took what he wrote negatively.

Go back to college and learn some psycho-babble before you judge me again, bro.

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

Did you even notice that I wasn't talking about the original post?

Yes I noticed you didn't pay any attention to the original posters attempt to hold a civil discussion on Steve's NEW domain policy. You came sucking Steve's cock instead of giving the thread a chance.

The only controversial thing I posted is that Steve should shitcan affiliates who bitch like little babies...

Exactly. A stupid unrelated story about how he should just shitcan affiliates. Most of them aren't even his affiliates yet. Why not give them a chance to give him some constructive feedback on his ideas?

[frank7799]

Steves suggestions for using domains containing his trademaks and tradenames are nothing but acceptable in my opinion.

Using them honestly and sending traffic to LS Media is a relationship which makes sence for both sides. And protecting the trademarks and tradenames does make sence, too. It will prevent cheaters from abusing those names sending traffic to dishonest sites.

So following the rules Steve suggested is not a big deal for those who will play honest.

Have you ever tried to get a licence for the name "Coca Cola" using it for a commercial? If you have, you will appreciate those easy rules LS Media has just created.

[Gillespie]

Originally Posted by m4yadult

Steves suggestions for using domains containing his trademaks and tradenames are nothing but acceptable in my opinion.

Using them honestly and sending traffic to LS Media is a relationship which makes sence for both sides. And protecting the trademarks and tradenames does make sence, too. It will prevent cheaters from abusing those names sending traffic to dishonest sites.

So following the rules Steve suggested is not a big deal for those who will play honest.

Have you ever tried to get a licence for the name "Coca Cola" using it for a commercial? If you have, you will appreciate those easy rules LS Media has just created.

So you're comparing Coca-Cola, a company that even trademarked the color "Coca-Cola red", with LS?

[frank7799]

Originally Posted by Gillespie

So you're comparing Coca-Cola, a company that even trademarked the color "Coca-Cola red", with LS?

Yes, well read. There is a reason to register a trademark beyond showing the world this "R". And - in contradiction to my posting in the other thread - US trademark law has no need to register a trademark. Protection starts by using it for something called "common law" in the US, which is different to most European trademark laws. Even more, using the trademark is necessary to register it, unless you can provide proof for future use.

Back to your question. Where do you see a difference between Coca - Cola trademarks and other ones? Do different trademarks have different protection?

[gooddomains]

a trademark is a trademark

Steve is a good guy. I know that he is a fair man, and will be easy to work with if you don't insult him. No one will be cool to you when you go off on them.

[Rochard]

Steve is a very fair man, but at the same time he has the right to protect his business interests.

Also, a trademark is a trademark. And if you think Steve Lightspeed cannot sue you over a trademark issue..... Think again.

[RawAlex]

The scary part is that this thread reminds me of how the basic and obvious things just don't seem to make sense to some people.

Steve is protecting his company's properties and trademarks. I understand exactly that he is attempting to stop the use of names like "Tawnee Stone" and "Jordan Capri" from being used to sell sites or products other than lightspeed's. He is attempting to make sure that the customers get what the customers expect, and likely to assure that the customers get a decent experience regardless of how they find a lightspeed site.

It is only logical, normaly, and very very good business. Respect him for putting out a policy that makes sense. It is simple, it is easy, and it should be obvious to anyone who thinks for more than a second.

Alex