Imagecash having sponsor problems :)))
 

. . .

I hope they'll just shut down ASAP!

"The premium section/access allows people to view the whole public gallery, search and download complete gallerys as zip files. The weekly donation charge is 7.50$"


what an idiot

asshat. another theft of content for pay operation. fucking content thieves.

well, looks like they're almost gone.. :)

didn't someone from here email targetpoint about them? i swear I saw someone saying they were about to....

I did :disgust

Targetpoint dropped ImageCash because their clicks didn't get enough conversions. At least that's what the webmaster posted.

Why don't they just use AFF like all the other sites like it? :1orglaugh

They were using AFF successfully until people complained about it and AFF cancelled them. Maybe they could use Guba.

They allow 1 MB uploads. How hard would it be for someone to code a basic script that could upload a crap load of 1 MB images in an attempt to drive up their server costs?

:drinkup :1orglaugh

It seems the owner is trying to sell his site.

2 minutes and 5 lines of Ruby code.

There are plenty of other image hosting sites that seem to be doing alright, what is this guy doing wrong?

they're trying to pay people that upload images for each view their pics get, at least that's what i think it was

I wouldn't mind having the script.

Yep. They're encouraging AND paying for content theft.

Not arguing with that, but how are they encouraging it? Would you say any of these others are also; photobucket, imageshack, imagevenu, imagefap, fapomatic, picturehost, tinypic, iphotohost, flickr, imageevent, phanfare, picbux, cashmoneyuploads, filebounty, fotki, fotango, photosite, .. well, you get the idea.

By paying per image view, they're encouraging people to do whatever it takes to jack up image views. No one is going to look at your pics of your trip to Japan 1000s of times in order for you to earn any money, but people are sure as hell going to look at all the hot porn you post for free. Sure they're not encouraging it directly (Hey, post porn pictures and get paid!), but to believe that the service was primarily intended for something else would be naive.

Would you say then, that every hosting service that pays you to post is encouraging content theft? Many that I listed do pay users to post.

If ImageCash stopped paying users to post, would they be acceptable in your opinion?

when you have a service that is susceptible to illegal activity , i would think the "lack" of implementing something to deter illegal activity is "encouraging" its use for illegal activity..

You wont see much CP on many of those services because they realise its illegal and in their best interest to build the software with that in mind , just as it would be in their best interest to curb copyright infringement ( if it was in their best interest ) and right now thats ( obviously )not high priority.

I'm not familiar with many of the other ones the other ones that you listed, so I don't know who pays and who doesn't. But if an image host is paying for image views, then I believe they're indirectly encouraging content theft. And to further my point about ImageCash encouraging content theft, they have a an entire section reserved for adult images. I doubt content providers are posting their photosets there.

If ImageCash stopped paying out, they'd be more acceptable in my eyes as the amound of stolen content posted for the sole purpose of getting paid would drop significantly. However, until they actively try to prevent stolen content from being posted, they'll still be unacceptable in my opinion.

Such as ? Most I see on any of them, including the largest ones like Flickr, Photobucket, ImageShack, etc.. is a Terms of Service.

How would they implement this? Keyword filtering or did you have other means in mind?

I would have thought similiarly until the recent Guba topics had explained how many of them -were- in fact posting their watermarked images to the newsgroups. The only real difference in the galleries at ImageCash and say a TGP site for example is there's no link to the sponsors. I wonder if they had a method of linking back to the sponsors, whether or not it would be ok. If so, it would seem he'd stand to make more money monetizing his site. It might make an interesting new TGP model. A system where the TGP owner pays approved submitters for views, rather than you trying to convert the sponsor or maybe even a revshare model.

all places like that should be shut down. It's built for people to steal simple as that.

Some of those like picbux and imagefap also pay you to upload and you're missing sexuploader.com on that list, I see that one posted in a lot of places.

Seems like a booming business.

Maybe I should had bought paiduploads.com after all.