"Mid-last year, a US federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, ordered Gator to temporarily stop displaying pop-up advertising over Web publishers' pages without their permission on the grounds that the ads violated their copyrights and stole revenue from ad sales."

Here's a link to the Gator case http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement...2130156,00.htm

GET THOSE FUCKERS :mad:!!

guba guba guba

dude? are you serious? i was trying to ask a simple question... all you had to do was answer it. you are the one saying "lets sue them" i was only asking you "for what exactly" to which you had no reply. your parting remarks are not "your obviously a zango fan.." --.... well, i like to think i am a fan of logic.

the link you provided offers a clear reason and possible grounds for a lawsuit. thats all i was asking about.

since you care... please know that i could care less if zango exists or doesn't. i dont use them, i just wanted to see it and know what it is... particularly since i drive by their office everyday. i dont worry about others, i adapt. i am not going to waste my time trying to change the world when my time can be better invested in adapting my business to current realities, matter what they are. i am not a crusader. i do what i do for me, for my wife and for our family. thats all.

How narrow-minded and short-sighted...

i can either devote my time to worrying about the near infinite number of things that i can't change, that affect me directly or indirectly.. or i can effectively worry about myself, make changes in a heartbeat and keep on moving.

the world needs crusaders. i'm just not going to be one of them.

I've talked about lawsuits against adware companies with Kellie and Ben Edelman several times before. Because most adware programs, and that includes zango, do NOT overwrite cookies themselves, it's not a winnable lawsuit for affiliates.

The ones who could sue adware companies, and SHOULD, are affiliate programs/sponsors for adware that display ads over their own sites and totally cover them. ALL these cases have been won or settled before and can/will be won again.

There are way too many ways that affiliates get cheated by adware and those who use these programs to steal. As Ben explained to me, it would be extremely difficult and confusing to try to document every occurrence for every sponsor, WHO popped the ad and stole the sale, explain every technical detail in court of each popup, how it happens, how it works, etc., and trying to put a money value to the amount lost, especially when the adware program itself does nothing wrong in this sense.

Let sponsors sue adware companies, they would win. We, affiliates, probably wouldn't and we'd spend a fortune trying.

CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS FOR AFFILIATES...

I sent Ben the links to the zango threads last month. Ben, Kellie and lawyers consulted on behalf of affiliates (mainstream AND porn) have said that it would be much easier and a more "winnable" case if affiliates sued SPONSORS for breach of contract. All TOS say that if a surfer comes from YOUR link, the commission is payable to YOU. With adware, this part of the affiliate agreement is broken. There has been plenty of proof posted in this forum alone about several sponsors who KNOW about it and are not doing anything to stop it. That's a direct breach of contract, doesn't get any clearer than that.

Sue ONE sponsor as a class action suit and win and see how many sponsors will drop their adware advertising after that.

You have to hurt ONE sponsor where it hurts most to get the ball rolling.

Missie

exactly. people are pissed at zango... but in all the recent BS, its the sponsor that is stealing. that is an easier case to make than the idea of trying to go after zango for what is probably going to be a fairly convoluted claim, insanely expensive to argue and its going to center on issues which have already been under intense legal scrutiny anyway.

FREE LEGENDARY LARS!! He was forced to steal. He should be suing Zango. Maybe he needs a "Help Lars Do The Right Thing" fund?

They do own a site, zango.com
You think they have permission for all those flash videos and games on there?

I doubt it :winkwink:

50 zango lawsuits....

don't forget other sites too... The whole " protect our traffic " is a smoke screen. They are not just buying their keywords (domains names), they are buying several other sites domains as well. How are they protecting their traffic when I go to check my clickcash stats and i get a zango popup from cams.com It shows in the browser they are targeting clickcashdotcom. Or all the times someone goes to sexsearch and a cams or aff popup comes up.

It's bullshit, people have given them several ways they could stop and they keep coming up with excuses. Maybe they feel that AFF has peaked and on its ways down so they will resort to dirty traffic that will only hurt them 10x worse in the long run.

unless you know something i don't ... zango does not work like that. its basically a ppc engine and you can bid on competitive URL's as keywords. they might be bidding on cams.com - but so are 30 other people. so the net effect in terms of "protecting their traffic" is almost ZERO

I think he means the distribution of the installs, other side of the zango opperation. Zango uses a lot of porn videos to lure people to click play through DRM license boxes that will make you install the zango search assistant (causes all the pop ups) on your computer in order for you to see the "free" porn video. I wonder who's content this is they are buying and if they have a license to use it that way as well as all of their 2257 info documented.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding that their arguement is also baseless because they are not only targeting the urls they own but urls of other companies as well.

he.. didn't mean to argue or sound like it (although i usually do anyway) - i meant to just point out that there is no merit at all to an argument like "we are forced to do it" because "doing it" doesn't change a whole lot since many other people are also bidding on cams.com. even having the number one position does mean much if there are 30 people bidding on it. :)

going further, if many people are bidding on it anyway and it represents such a tiny fraction of traffic as he claims, then its not possible to justify it.

Zango does suck ass. I just had to remove it from my neighbors computer. It was fucking up all kinds of shit.

Thats a great idea, what are his sites. I can check to see if anything happens.


Along the same lines if you let the religious community and zangos mainstream sponsors know that they are advertising their games to kids with the search assistant included I think it will piss off a lot of people who can do more damage then we can. Who wants to do business with a company that markets their products to kids and causes porn to pop up on their computers, well besides sex search and aff... I don't think many people would be happy about this.

:thumbsup :thumbsup

this is just sad.

http://cams.com/go/page/cams_view_ra...h.com_Cams.com

" subclickcash.com_Cams.com "


I log in to check my clickcash stats and this page pops up. Only webmasters go to clickcash.com so why are they targeting that as well ? I seriously doubt any webmasters who are logging into clickcash are going to see this pop up and then go signup to cams.com to watch some chick on cam.

This just started happening a few weeks ago. Way to waste your money Cams.com.

So why not sue AFF? They seem to be one of the biggest sponsors around not giving a shit about stealing our traffic. I'd be all for it.

trust me,they do have permission

Exactly what the problem is these days, noone cares about anything but themselves, so tyrants, scammers, punks, bunko artists, thieves, and just
plain fucking greed takes over the world... one nickel at a time

:thumbsup

From what I have been told affiliates would have a pretty good case against their sponsor for business interference.

Sponsors would have the best case to sue zango and other sponsors.

very good idea....