OT: New Definition of Hyperlinks, SPAM

[MemnochtheDevil]

Yeah, I looked around for info in the FAQs and else where about paid advertising, as it involves forum members/posting, couldn't find anything.

I think its appropriate for people to suggest ebay as a source for modems, as long as they don't pimp their auctions. As for why Annonamoose is able to promote SBC's store, no idea... Perhaps the mods draw a finer line on promoting company stores than personal ones. Or maybe Lev is biased against all things zoom and thus against you for selling them

:disgust:

I don't disagree that there is a problem here and I think they need to communicate better to you what the policy is. Why others are ok in their posts and you are not. But I do understand why they try to limit commercial advertising on their site. So I guess I don't see the legal issue.

Sorry if my intial response seemed directed at you, it was more my thoughts on everything in the discussion. How long have you been trying to reach the mods?

 

[RaySun2Be]

Obviously, coming in here and posting is one thing, when this is his "home forum" I guess, but RaySun2Be, while the majority of posts in OT are generally asinine on nature.. it IS OT. Most people there will make the stupid comments (STFU retard as an example).

That was my point. 🙂

I wouldn't post something in OT and expect a great deal of good discussion. Sometimes it happens, but a lot of times, if they don't know you, you get attacked with STFU and name calling, instead of reasonable arguments for or against. That's why I was surprised David posted there. 🙂

And judging by the comments here, I don't think anyone is blindly going to support anyone.

I too make a distiction between government actions and laws and private actions and rules. I believe that David should be allowed to post references to Zoom modems in threads discussing "where can I buy" and "should I replace" threads, to give the poster and others a CHOICE, (just like a lot of the posts touting modems on Ebay and the SBC store).

However, IMHO. since it is a private site, they can be as biased as they choose to be, like it or not. Under the current (revised) rules for the site, it appears that referring to Zoom modems can be considered OK, if not "too frequent". "Too Frequent" is determined by the forum mods and since one of them seems hates Zoom modems based on a bad experience in the '80s, so I doubt they will allow much at all.

I also think it could have been worse. They only removed his sig line, they could have given him a vacation or banned him, like other sites do.

And I agree, most sites like Anandtech and BBR protect their revenue by restricting commercial site advertising and thus trying to get them to used paid advertisements.

Since David had gotten the OK to put the link to his site in his BBR sig, previously, I would suggest he have some reasonable conversations with the BBR owner, and see if some compromise could be found. That is if they will return his communications.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: MemnochtheDevil
Yeah, I looked around for info in the FAQs and else where about paid advertising, as it involves forum members/posting, couldn't find anything.

I think its appropriate for people to suggest ebay as a source for modems, as long as they don't pimp their auctions. As for why Annonamoose is able to promote SBC's store, no idea... Perhaps the mods draw a finer line on promoting company stores than personal ones. Or maybe Lev is biased against all things zoom and thus against you for selling them

:disgust:

I don't disagree that there is a problem here and I think they need to communicate better to you what the policy is. Why others are ok in their posts and you are not. But I do understand why they try to limit commercial advertising on their site. So I guess I don't see the legal issue.

Sorry if my intial response seemed directed at you, it was more my thoughts on everything in the discussion. How long have you been trying to reach the mods?

Thank you for seeing the discrepancy there. That all I was trying to point out.
No legal issue other than it appeared they were saying Hyperlinks are SPAM and illegal in general, now I see it is only directed at me.
I have been talking with Mods there since day one. Justin and the PressQ e-mail address never replied to other E-mails nearly a month ago.

 

[MemnochtheDevil]

Well if Justin is a hands off guy or on vacation, you might be stuck with the mods. Try not to stress too much over this, you can give yourself a stroke over peons who decide they can use their limited power to control you. Good luck...

 

[MoFunk]

This sounds like a crappy situation.

 

[dabuddha]

since you brought this over here too, ill just comment
as was stated in OT, it's really simple
It is a PRIVATELY owned site. It is not a publicly owned site. As per that, fair access is not an issue here. They can decide who can and cannot view their website. It is up to them who can post what to their website. If you don't like it, you can register a domain, setup web hosting, and put whatever you like. Again, it's a PRIVATE website. You have no legal ground here whatsoever. One good point someone else brought up in OT is this. I've got these modems I want to sell and I want to advertise them on your website Dave. Now according to your logic, you have to let me because not doing so would violate some "equal access" law which you're imagining up. Even with your situation with the state of Georgia, you were in the wrong. You did not own those computers. Only reason I supported you is because the punishment they were attempting to enforce was way out of line.
Grow up Dave and stop with these asinine frivolous lawsuits. You're starting to remind of the lady that sued McDonalds over her spilt coffee because she's an idiot

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
since you brought this over here too, ill just comment
as was stated in OT, it's really simple
It is a PRIVATELY owned site. It is not a publicly owned site. As per that, fair access is not an issue here. They can decide who can and cannot view their website. It is up to them who can post what to their website. If you don't like it, you can register a domain, setup web hosting, and put whatever you like. Again, it's a PRIVATE website. You have no legal ground here whatsoever. One good point someone else brought up in OT is this. I've got these modems I want to sell and I want to advertise them on your website Dave. Now according to your logic, you have to let me because not doing so would violate some "equal access" law which you're imagining up. Even with your situation with the state of Georgia, you were in the wrong. You did not own those computers. Only reason I supported you is because the punishment they were attempting to enforce was way out of line.
Grow up Dave and stop with these asinine frivolous lawsuits. You're starting to remind of the lady that sued McDonalds over her spilt coffee because she's an idiot

I would have to agree with this. When I saw "Legal Internet Emergency" in the title, I was expecting something a lot more dire than a moderator/administrator making an executive decision on signatures in BBR's private forum. Maybe you were coming on too strong and other readers pointed and said "spammer" to the Moderator.

 

[EvilWobbles]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Chipster22

You're actually helping to make my point in all this that some people over there are making their own laws and selectively enforcing them as they go along.

This is where we will probably part and have to call an "agreement to disagree" 🙂.

I draw a distinction between website policies or "laws" if you would like to call them that, and government enforced laws. The government has to be fair in enforceing its laws to ensure everyone's rights are maintained. Private people, institutions, websites, etc., need more freedom to run things as they see fit.

I agree too but still doesn't sit well as far as equal access. I do not have equal access.

As a private company, they don't have to provide equal access. While it would be nice to see them afford the same rights and privileges to all users, there is no law requiring a private organization to do so.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
since you brought this over here too, ill just comment
as was stated in OT, it's really simple
It is a PRIVATELY owned site. It is not a publicly owned site. As per that, fair access is not an issue here. They can decide who can and cannot view their website. It is up to them who can post what to their website. If you don't like it, you can register a domain, setup web hosting, and put whatever you like. Again, it's a PRIVATE website. You have no legal ground here whatsoever. One good point someone else brought up in OT is this. I've got these modems I want to sell and I want to advertise them on your website Dave. Now according to your logic, you have to let me because not doing so would violate some "equal access" law which you're imagining up. Even with your situation with the state of Georgia, you were in the wrong. You did not own those computers. Only reason I supported you is because the punishment they were attempting to enforce was way out of line.
Grow up Dave and stop with these asinine frivolous lawsuits. You're starting to remind of the lady that sued McDonalds over her spilt coffee because she's an idiot

Some people still can't get it right, and in this case your ignorance is showing too well. He had permission, but they were still trying to persecute him.

Again, I think calling the issue with BBR a legal situation is taking it a bit too far. If I were him I would say F*** BBR and then just stop recommending or linking to their site, and discouraging others who ask from using their forums based on the issues at hand. But since it's a privately owned site, there's not really too much you can, or should be able to, do.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: jliechty

Originally posted by: dabuddha
since you brought this over here too, ill just comment
as was stated in OT, it's really simple
It is a PRIVATELY owned site. It is not a publicly owned site. As per that, fair access is not an issue here. They can decide who can and cannot view their website. It is up to them who can post what to their website. If you don't like it, you can register a domain, setup web hosting, and put whatever you like. Again, it's a PRIVATE website. You have no legal ground here whatsoever. One good point someone else brought up in OT is this. I've got these modems I want to sell and I want to advertise them on your website Dave. Now according to your logic, you have to let me because not doing so would violate some "equal access" law which you're imagining up. Even with your situation with the state of Georgia, you were in the wrong. You did not own those computers. Only reason I supported you is because the punishment they were attempting to enforce was way out of line.
Grow up Dave and stop with these asinine frivolous lawsuits. You're starting to remind of the lady that sued McDonalds over her spilt coffee because she's an idiot

Some people still can't get it right, and in this case your ignorance is showing too well. He had permission, but they were still trying to persecute him.

Again, I think calling the issue with BBR a legal situation is taking it a bit too far. If I were him I would say F*** BBR and then just stop recommending or linking to their site, and discouraging others who ask from using their forums based on the issues at hand. But since it's a privately owned site, there's not really too much you can, or should be able to, do.

True he claims he had permission before. But again, i'll repeat this for your benefit, it is a PRIVATE website. The owner of the website can remove anything he wants. He is not legally obligated to allow Dave to spam his website in his sig. He can, at any time, revoke permission without informing him about it. Especially since Dave is not paying for it. Regardless of his "emails" requesting paid advertising, bottom line is that he isn't paying for his sig nor access to the forums

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
True he claims he had permission before. But again, i'll repeat this for your benefit, it is a PRIVATE website. The owner of the website can remove anything he wants. He is not legally obligated to allow Dave to spam his website in his sig. He can, at any time, revoke permission without informing him about it. Especially since Dave is not paying for it. Regardless of his "emails" requesting paid advertising, bottom line is that he isn't paying for his sig nor access to the forums

It is a private website; the idiotic admin didn't treat Dave fairly by removing the non-spamming sig while allowing others of the same nature to continue; there's not much Dave can do to mend relations at BBR, so I suggest that he just move on, and leave the site some negative publicity if possible.

Dave, just please don't keep pushing this like it's some big legal thing, as it's backfiring badly (as should be evident). Their treatment of you is unfair, despite what the ATOT nefs say, but I'm afraid there's not much you can do about it. 🙁

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: jliechty

Originally posted by: dabuddha
True he claims he had permission before. But again, i'll repeat this for your benefit, it is a PRIVATE website. The owner of the website can remove anything he wants. He is not legally obligated to allow Dave to spam his website in his sig. He can, at any time, revoke permission without informing him about it. Especially since Dave is not paying for it. Regardless of his "emails" requesting paid advertising, bottom line is that he isn't paying for his sig nor access to the forums

It is a private website; the idiotic admin didn't treat Dave fairly by removing the non-spamming sig while allowing others of the same nature to continue; there's not much Dave can do to mend relations at BBR, so I suggest that he just move on, and leave the site some negative publicity if possible.

Dave, just please don't keep pushing this like it's some big legal thing, as it's backfiring badly (as should be evident). Their treatment of you is unfair, despite what the ATOT nefs say, but I'm afraid there's not much you can do about it. 🙁

perhaps, for a second, someone could take a look at it from BBR's point of view? I'm the admin and I have all these ignorant people telling me what i can and can't put on my site? Who are they to tell me what I can put on my site which I paid for?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: jliechty

Originally posted by: dabuddha
True he claims he had permission before. But again, i'll repeat this for your benefit, it is a PRIVATE website. The owner of the website can remove anything he wants. He is not legally obligated to allow Dave to spam his website in his sig. He can, at any time, revoke permission without informing him about it. Especially since Dave is not paying for it. Regardless of his "emails" requesting paid advertising, bottom line is that he isn't paying for his sig nor access to the forums

It is a private website; the idiotic admin didn't treat Dave fairly by removing the non-spamming sig while allowing others of the same nature to continue; there's not much Dave can do to mend relations at BBR, so I suggest that he just move on, and leave the site some negative publicity if possible.

Dave, just please don't keep pushing this like it's some big legal thing, as it's backfiring badly (as should be evident). Their treatment of you is unfair, despite what the ATOT nefs say, but I'm afraid there's not much you can do about it. 🙁

perhaps, for a second, someone could take a look at it from BBR's point of view? I'm the admin and I have all these ignorant people telling me what i can and can't put on my site? Who are they to tell me what I can put on my site which I paid for?

I never pushed it as a big legal thing, sorry I put the word legal in the Title.

>He is not legally obligated to allow Dave to spam his website in his sig.

Can't believe there are people that honestly call and believe Weblinks are SPAM.

That means the entire Internet is nothing but SPAM.

I just got a new Memory chip delivered cheap by clicking on a weblink, what was I crazy for clicking on an illegal SPAM hyperlink?

I didn't respond to an unsolicited E-mail thrown in my E-mail address from the Company that sold the Memory chip, that would be and is SPAM. How come people don't see the difference? Where the heck was I when Weblinks were changed into being SPAM?
Who re-wrote the definition of these Internet terms?

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: jliechty

Originally posted by: dabuddha
True he claims he had permission before. But again, i'll repeat this for your benefit, it is a PRIVATE website. The owner of the website can remove anything he wants. He is not legally obligated to allow Dave to spam his website in his sig. He can, at any time, revoke permission without informing him about it. Especially since Dave is not paying for it. Regardless of his "emails" requesting paid advertising, bottom line is that he isn't paying for his sig nor access to the forums

It is a private website; the idiotic admin didn't treat Dave fairly by removing the non-spamming sig while allowing others of the same nature to continue; there's not much Dave can do to mend relations at BBR, so I suggest that he just move on, and leave the site some negative publicity if possible.

Dave, just please don't keep pushing this like it's some big legal thing, as it's backfiring badly (as should be evident). Their treatment of you is unfair, despite what the ATOT nefs say, but I'm afraid there's not much you can do about it. 🙁

perhaps, for a second, someone could take a look at it from BBR's point of view? I'm the admin and I have all these ignorant people telling me what i can and can't put on my site? Who are they to tell me what I can put on my site which I paid for?

I never pushed it as a big legal thing, sorry I put the word legal in the Title.

>He is not legally obligated to allow Dave to spam his website in his sig.

Can't believe there are people that honestly call and believe Weblinks are SPAM.

That means the entire Internet is nothing but SPAM.

I just got a new Memory chip delivered cheap by clicking on a weblink, what was I crazy for clicking on an illegal SPAM hyperlink?

I didn't respond to an unsolicited E-mail thrown in my E-mail address from the Company that sold the Memory chip, that would be and is SPAM. How come people don't see the difference? Where the heck was I when Weblinks were changed into being SPAM?
Who re-wrote the definition of these Internet terms?

spam, weblinks, whatever. Either way, you have no right to put it in your sig unless its your own site. You won't get any sympathy from anyone

 

[MemnochtheDevil]

You might want to edit the topic title Dave, it might ease some of the criticism as this really isn't a legal issue. And you having a disagreement with the mods at BBR won't set an evil precedent that ruins the internet.

Thinking about it though, I can see how advertisements or other annoying things in signatures could be spam. You will see it every time that person posts, so all they have to do is become a very involved poster (posting constantly/multiple times in topics) and their link/ad will be exposed many times to more people. Anyone who chooses to particpate on the board would be exposed to the link multiple times daily just by reading threads.

Does this apply to your link and posting? I don't think so. I think they don't want ads for users buisnesses in posts or signatures. Maybe they make exceptions for the tecnical employees of some isps, it would be nice to find out what the rules are. But spam to them might mean something different than it does to me. So the mod feels your arguing semantics and not addressing the issue.

I think your response to radiodoc might have seemed confrontational (with the certified letter bit) and that also may be hampering communication. The mods and justin might be kicking around what a proper response should be given that you seem to want to document all communication.

Just my semi-random thoughts trying to look at it from both sides viewpoint.

 

[networkman]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Chipster22
I don't think of a link in a sig line is spam either.

But I do think the owners of a website or forum have the right to run things the way they see fit. Even if it is stupid.

One website or forum with stupid rules cannot ruin the internet. Good intentioned laws trying to make the every site fair for everyone, might however, IMHO.

So you believe discrimination is OK? Wow

As Chipster said. Yeah, it's their site - they can be as stupid and short-sighted as they wanna be. 😉

As for them being able to discriminate, yes, I'd agree with that so long as they're not taking any government funding to operate their site. As our laws concerning various institutions say, once you accept gov't monies you have to abide by the laws set up to eliminiate discrimination. And that is why some organizations will not accept such funding, and I completely agree with that. 🙂

If you wish to discuss further, we should go to PM or off-site, 'cuz we're WAY off topic now. 😉

 

[dmcowen674]

>He is not legally obligated to allow Dave to spam his website in his sig.

Can't believe there are people that honestly call and believe Weblinks are SPAM.

That means the entire Internet is nothing but SPAM.

I just got a new Memory chip delivered cheap by clicking on a weblink, what was I crazy for clicking on an illegal SPAM hyperlink?

I didn't respond to an unsolicited E-mail thrown in my E-mail address from the Company that sold the Memory chip, that would be and is SPAM. How come people don't see the difference? Where the heck was I when Weblinks were changed into being SPAM?
Who re-wrote the definition of these Internet terms?

spam, weblinks, whatever. Either way, you have no right to put it in your sig unless its your own site. You won't get any sympathy from anyone[/quote]

Hmmm, Kettle calling the pot black. Your heatware sig is an advertisement for you. What gave you that right? I didn't know you own this Website too.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: MemnochtheDevil
You might want to edit the topic title Dave, it might ease some of the criticism as this really isn't a legal issue.

I didn't even see this and was about to change the Title anyway.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

>He is not legally obligated to allow Dave to spam his website in his sig.

Can't believe there are people that honestly call and believe Weblinks are SPAM.

That means the entire Internet is nothing but SPAM.

I just got a new Memory chip delivered cheap by clicking on a weblink, what was I crazy for clicking on an illegal SPAM hyperlink?

I didn't respond to an unsolicited E-mail thrown in my E-mail address from the Company that sold the Memory chip, that would be and is SPAM. How come people don't see the difference? Where the heck was I when Weblinks were changed into being SPAM?
Who re-wrote the definition of these Internet terms?

spam, weblinks, whatever. Either way, you have no right to put it in your sig unless its your own site. You won't get any sympathy from anyone

Hmmm, Kettle calling the pot black. Your heatware sig is an advertisement for you. What gave you that right? I didn't know you own this Website too.[/quote]

You're right, I don't have the right. and if the moderator or Anand changed my sig or deleted it, I can guarantee I won't post about it on a different message board whining and crying how its "illegal" and "not fair use" or whatever crap you're complaining about 🙂

 

[MemnochtheDevil]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: MemnochtheDevil
You might want to edit the topic title Dave, it might ease some of the criticism as this really isn't a legal issue.

I didn't even see this and was about to change the Title anyway.

See, I'm just ahead of the curve! (sounds much better than partially insane 😉)

 

[crypticlogin]

I'll agree that the admins over at BBR mistakenly called hyperlinks "spam" since that term is almost exclusively reserved for the context of unsolicited email. However, I haven't read enough of your BBR posts to judge if they, along with your signature, would constitude some kind of self promotion. Is it "unfair" that BBR's giving out conflicting statements? Sure. Fine. But you've acknowledged that they're a private group and unless they're breaking a law, they can set and enforce their own arbitrary policies.

BTW, thank you for changing your titles. This is clearly not a legal issue and as you alluded to, not signaling the debut of NaziNet(TM).

Hmmm, Kettle calling the pot black. Your heatware sig is an advertisement for you. What gave you that right? I didn't know you own this Website too.

However, I think this last comment is where you're starting to grasp at straws. Obviuosly, just about everyone who links heatware in their sig (myself included) does not own or operate the Heatware system. Heatware references in signatures don't allow people to place orders... that would require striking a deal someplace else. My heatware does not say "I currently have a sprocket for sale", it says I've sold a sprocket before. That doesn't mean I'm not currently selling sprockets since I could have a post someplace doing exactly that, but it's not directly mentioned in what's linked from my sig.

In your case, you personally own and operate the site in your signature. You have a direct and realizable (sp.) benefit in terms of revenue for anybody who follows your link and places an order. That is the fundamental difference.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: tenchim
I'll agree that the admins over at BBR mistakenly called hyperlinks "spam" since that term is almost exclusively reserved for the context of unsolicited email. However, I haven't read enough of your BBR posts to judge if they, along with your signature, would constitude some kind of self promotion. Is it "unfair" that BBR's giving out conflicting statements? Sure. Fine. But you've acknowledged that they're a private group and unless they're breaking a law, they can set and enforce their own arbitrary policies.

BTW, thank you for changing your titles. This is clearly not a legal issue and as you alluded to, not signaling the debut of NaziNet(TM).

Hmmm, Kettle calling the pot black. Your heatware sig is an advertisement for you. What gave you that right? I didn't know you own this Website too.

However, I think this last comment is where you're starting to grasp at straws. Obviuosly, just about everyone who links heatware in their sig (myself included) does not own or operate the Heatware system. Heatware references in signatures don't allow people to place orders... that would require striking a deal someplace else. My heatware does not say "I currently have a sprocket for sale", it says I've sold a sprocket before. That doesn't mean I'm not currently selling sprockets since I could have a post someplace doing exactly that, but it's not directly mentioned in what's linked from my sig.

In your case, you personally own and operate the site in your signature. You have a direct and realizable (sp.) benefit in terms of revenue for anybody who follows your link and places an order. That is the fundamental difference.

I'm the one splitting hairs? Is Heatware not just a word and a Link and you would benefit from someone clicking on it?
Are you an Attorney or was an Ex-President? That sounded so much like I tried it but didn't inhale.

 

[crypticlogin]

I'm the one splitting hairs? Is Heatware not just a word and a Link and you would benefit from someone clicking on it?
Are you an Attorney or was an Ex-President? That sounded so much like I tried it but didn't inhale.

I don't get any money from people clicking on my heatware or doing anything at the linked site. Try to give me money through my heatware, I double dog dare ya! 😛

(And I thought you could be civil, but now I know you can't be.)

 

[C'DaleRider]

Message OptionsSubscribe to ThreadE-Mail ThreadView Users ProfilePrivate Message UserPrint Thread


Unfortunately, Dave didn't exactly tell the whole story.


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
said by kingofdsl :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

or you can get a X4 DSL Modem by Zoom. It has a Router in it and both USB port and Ethernet port live at the same time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ameritech Tech (moderator at DSL Reports)


So I'm just curious since you've done it twice so far, are you going to hop into this forum every time someone's looking for a new modem and recommend that one, like you've done in the Pacbell forum, the Earthlink forum, the Qwest forum, among others? Let me guess...can that modem be bought at the URL in your sig?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




So apparently Dave has been hawking his DSL modems all over the place and quite frequently, too. Busy beaver, eh?


See that thread here.

 

[Michael]

Dave,

I'm glad you changed the title of the thread from "legal emergency".

I disagree with your point of view and support the Mods over at BBR in their actions to remove your sig. Your sig is advertising and it appears that you did a little too much self promotion.

Michael