Google - Is This Hypocrisy? | Warrior Forum - The #1 Digital Marketing Forum & Marketplace

15 years ago

Cardinal rule of business - people always do business with people they like. In this case its businesses discriminately monopolizing the field. They own the field so long as we keep giving them that preference.

Judging by the poor quality results being returned more often than not by google recently I'm starting to like yahoo and bing better.

Yahoo has just as many products as google does but on a smaller scale.

Many of these products google copied.

[ 1 ] Thank this user
2 replies

Signature

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Shana_Adam

Cardinal rule of business - people always do business with people they like. In this case its businesses discriminately monopolizing the field. They own the field so long as we keep giving them that preference.

Judging by the poor quality results being returned more often than not by google recently I'm starting to like yahoo and bing better.

Yahoo has just as many products as google does but on a smaller scale.

Many of these products google copied.

Shana

I really can't agree more - Bing and Yahoo were basically beaten out of the mainstream by the dreaded google, but to be honest if I use either of the above mentioned SE's I always find the same results as if Id used da big G..

[ 1 ] Thank this user

ebizman87

ebizman87

ebizman87

Posts: Threads: Thanks: Account age: less than a second

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Shana_Adam

Many of these products google copied.

Products and services such as..

1)Yahoo Answers ->Google Answers
2)Yahoo Groups ->Google Groups
3)Yahoo Mail ->Gmail
- [ 0 ] Thank this user
Signature
Is this for real?

15 years ago

Well, seems like I am not the only one who's got it in for the big G.. I mean, the small g.. today:

Google Enables Real Time Spam and More

AN

[ 1 ] Thank this user

Signature

"If there is no door, it becomes necessary to break out through the wall."

15 years ago

The mediocre/big G have quite a large controlling interest over the web and I found it highly amusing when they banned my adwords account for supposedly breaking their t&c at some point in the past for eg promoting a very good flipping course, or maybe weatthy affiliate around about a year ago..

They seemed to find this kind of activity OK when they were making money, once again bout a year ago but its totally baaaad today - @@sholes

May the fleas of totally lots of camels infest their pits

[ 1 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

Yeah, it is a sad state of affairs.
The WF is going to have to add the discussion of Google along with the existing rules of not discussing politics and religion before long.

You know how duplicating sites is against Google's TOS and how when it comes to duplicate content that only one site will be selected to display this content?

Do a global search for "buy games".
Now compare the first 2 sites returned.
Exact same sites with exact same content but with different branding.

I guess sometimes it's who you know, or how much money you have to spend.
But I guess this is something we must live with.

[ 1 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

yes, I am....

Steven Wagenheim

Steven Wagenheim

Steven Wagenheim

Posts: Threads: Thanks: Account age: less than a second

15 years ago

I really enjoyed reading your post. You write very well. At least it's
entertaining as I try to wash down the bad taste in my mouth from the
subject matter.

I agree. Google has become so big that...well, I'll just stop there.

Not that I have much that they can take away from me.
- [ 2 ] Thank this user
- 1 reply
Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel
- kindsvater
  
  kindsvater
  
  kindsvater
  
  Posts: Threads: Thanks: Account age: less than a second
  
  15 years ago
  
  I disagree.
  
  The essence of Google's business is 'rankings.' If you don't like the business model don't visit Google.
  
  The question then is, maybe you don't like how they rank websites. OK, use another search engine - or none at all.
  
  Do "big" companies tend to hog the top search listings? Anyone can find tons of examples that indicate yes - but someone else can find tons of examples indicating no.
  
  To me, the Internet is still a huge leveler and tiny mom and pop stores, and people working at home at night, still grab a significant amount of top search listings.
  
  Why do 'big' companies get some top listings? Could it be they're successful, long-term popular companies that most people want to see listed?
  
  Seriously, do you think everyone wants to see Joe's crap website at the top - a home "business" that will probably be out of business in 3 years? The dissolution rate of small businesses is incredible - and it has nothing to do with search rankings.
  
  Do they want to see your Made for Adsense site? Your traffic equalizer site? Your horrendous looking site full of typos? Your crap blog full of autogenerated content and Ezine articles?
  
  With the churn of small businesses that leaves big businesses as long-term players who perhaps default to better listings.
  
  Bottom line: You love Google when you're #1. Not so much when you're not.
  
  That said, I am concerned that Google has such a huge market share.
  
  And I don't like the fact that Google is just hammering Adwords accounts without warnings.
  
  But when you look at the categories of websites Google is saying to stay away from in Adwords, I can't argue with it.
  
  If my quadrillion dollar business was based on providing quality results so that people keep coming back and not drifting over to Bing or the new AltaVista, I'd have the same list. Actually, my list of bad neighborhood type sites would be a lot longer.
  
  [ 7 ] Thank this user
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  Use Elf Links to Stop Google's Affiliate Bans - Brian Kindsvater IM Help
  
  ShaneBoyd
  
  ShaneBoyd
  
  ShaneBoyd
  
  Posts: Threads: Thanks: Account age: less than a second
  
  15 years ago
  
  This was a fun read. It's funny how the IM industry LOVED google a couple years ago when google helped them make a fortune. Now I hardly see any IM that has anything good to say about google.
  
  Personally, I never stopped using Yahoo. I have Yahoo on my home page and use it for my search engine. I follow the google guidelines because that is what the Gurus taught. However, I don't do PPC of any kind on google. If I want to run a PPC as I use Yahoo.
  
  Anyway, fun read. Thanks folks.
  
  Shane
  
  [ 1 ] Thank this user
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  Free Videos Reveal The 3 Biggest Lead Generation Mistakes Small Businesses Make...And How To Overcome Them All.
  
  Mattk
  
  Mattk
  
  Mattk
  
  Posts: Threads: Thanks: Account age: less than a second
  
  15 years ago
  
  However, I don't do PPC of any kind on google. If I want to run a PPC as I use Yahoo.
  
  I use Adwords as well as Yahoo. 90+% of my PPC traffic comes from Google. I even pay a higher amount per click with Yahoo for the same keywords. I can't disagree with your choice, but in terms of making money from PPC my niche would really suck without Adwords.
  
  It's too bad, but I think a lot of the smaller niches would be hard pressed to only use Yahoo or Bing.
  
  This is of course only based on my experience from the past year.
  
  [ 0 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

Isn't the link you provided talking about scammers using the name "Google" in an effort to promote blatant crap? I don't see how Google suing them is all high and mighty - in fact, I say it's about darn time.

As for the rest of your post - very thought provoking and rings true in a lot of what you said. Thanks for sharing your insight.

Teresa

[ 2 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

Hypocrisy? Seriously?

As Teresa Coppes said, Google is suing people are are claiming to BE Google, and are scamming people into thinking they are going to get a legitimate job at Google. Thank god Google is finally putting an end to the lies these idiots are telling.

I've seen these ads several times, and I've reported every single one of them to Google. While you may not agree with the way Google runs their company, they have every right to protect their brand from people who are using Google's name to scam people.

[ 3 ] Thank this user
1 reply

15 years ago

I don't understand what this thread is meant to complain about.

The Google Money is a huge scam that has hurt many people - and I have no problem with google going after those who promote it.

Google Money "kit" tells folks that google will hire them to work from home and pay high $$$ to them for doing so - for crying out loud, how scammy can you get.

If you rant about google, there will always be people who are happy to jump in and bash google. However, in this case, these folks were using google's name to scam people and I'm happy to see them shut down.

kay

[ 3 ] Thank this user
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

I don't understand what this thread is meant to complain about.

The Google Money is a huge scam that has hurt many people - and I have no problem with google going after those who promote it.

Google Money "kit" tells folks that google will hire them to work from home and pay high $$$ to them for doing so - for crying out loud, how scammy can you get.

If you rant about google, there will always be people who are happy to jump in and bash google. However, in this case, these folks were using google's name to scam people and I'm happy to see them shut down.

kay

Maybe Google can explain why they didn't ban advertising for all of these scammy Google products 6-12 months ago when the scammy Google kits were at their height of popularity? Is it possible they wanted the...MONEY?

Aaron Wall of SEOBook wrote a compelling "Open Letter to Online Ad Networks" here:
An Open Letter to Online Ad Networks

Michael Arrington of TechCrunch has been extremely vocal in his criticism of FaceBook allowing obvious scam advertising to run that could be easily shut down.

To Google's credit though - they continue to allow Pacific WebWorks - the company they are suing and which they claim caused them "incalculable damage" to advertise on Google Adwords.

Huh???

Click here to see Pacific WebWorks adwords ad - STILL running! - I've also attached a screenshot I JUST took below.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

Work At Home Truth - Extra Income Edition | Swindles.org

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Marc Rodill

This open letter has NOTHING to do with Google making money off the products. The prodcuts are owned by marketers; other people!

I fail to see your point, at all.

The only money Google made off them was from other people (again, marketers) paying for advertising...

$200,000 a month? That's NOTHING to Google. They routinely shut down adwords accounts that spend MILLIONS, and who are NOT promoting anything with the word "Google" in it.

It's not about the money. 6 months is not a long time. That's $1,200,000.00. That is a pittance to Google. Their business models survives on bringing the best search experience to their users.

Just because they didn't crack down on a trend immediately doesn't mean anything. 6 months is nothing. A blip.

...

Again, what are you going on and on about, really?

Marc

I suppose I'm going on and on about the same things that Michael Arrington of TechCrunch and Aaron Wall of SEOBook have been criticizing Google and FaceBook for.

Did you READ the recent MoneyGram case?' Did you READ Michael Webster's analysis. It goes beyond just "rogue agents".

I'm amazed at how many people are quick to jump to very simple conclusions because they don't want to do their homework.

Why don't you go ask Michael Arrington and Aaron Wall what they're "going on and on about?

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/05...ti-scam-rules/

[ 0 ] Thank this user
2 replies

Signature

Work At Home Truth - Extra Income Edition | Swindles.org

15 years ago

Hi Mark,

RE - the techcrunch link -

Anyone who doesn't engage in scammy behavior right now is at a monetization disadvantage. There are real similarities between this issue and steroid use in baseball. As long as the MLB didn't really enforce steroid use among players, it was a competitive necessity to take the drugs, and so many more players took them than otherwise would. What we saw this week was the equivalent of the MLB staying silent while a group of the most popular players admitted to steroid use and promised to stop using it from now on.

He has a good point there.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Signature

Roger Davis

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Marc Rodill

Fair enough. Hook me up. Link me to what YOU have read about the case and Webster's viewpoint, and I'll judge it fairly and with an open mind.

Frankly, Aaron Wall's post isn't shocking or revealing.

Here are a few articles/posts of significance:

Scamville - the social gaming ecosystem of hell in which - as Newsweek's Dan Lyon's points out in this article is part of Arrington's crusade to put pressure on FaceBook to stop accepting scammy advertising[/url] in which he quotes Arrington as saying:

""Ultimately this is Facebook's fault," Arrington says. He says the social-networking site isn't enforcing its own rules against scam ads. "It's like with Major League Baseball and steroids. If the rules aren't enforced, which is what's happening on Facebook, then people are going to break the rules. Facebook needs to stop this."

Within the article you'll see Arrington spew the "nonsense" that:
"There can be only one reason Facebook and MySpace turn a blind eye to user protection - they're getting such a huge cut of revenue back from these developers in advertising. If they turn off the spigot, they hurt themselves."

Michael Webster's discussion of the MoneyGram case is here:
MoneyGram Scam and GateKeeper liability - he's a regular reader of my blog and his background in business opportuinty and franchise fraud - and in particular misleading advertising has been eye opening. The first thing he posted on my blog about the MoneyGram case was

"What is important about this is the FTC went after those who knowingly enable fraud.
I suspect that we will see more cases like this."

What you may not remember is that the FTC was pressuring online media for self-regulation back in early 2009:
FTC to Web Publishers: Get Rid of Stimulus Scam Ads

I'll be gone most of tomorrow, so I'll be interested to see what you think of all this when i return.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

Work At Home Truth - Extra Income Edition | Swindles.org

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Marc Rodill

I'll keep it very simple.

Yes, there are scams abounding. You are right.

There are scams (and fraud) in politics, in religion, in business, internationally, in the financial sectors, and among corporations.

BUT... it's not my job to police the world. That's what law enforcement is for. I didn't sign up for the job. There are too many distractions. I am more focused on living my life and how I can be successful. Aside from that fact...

If I wanted to focus on all the negative crap, I'd turn on the news. Or roll over and die, because yes, it gets bad.

...

But what the **** does this have to do with GOOGLE, hypocrisy, and what the thread is originally about?

Good lord!

Marc Rodill

You know. After a day of sitting it out I might have to agree with you more than I originally thought.

I think because I have a great friend I Skype with all day who works with a lot of the heads of the various fraud fighting agencies in D.C. I do tend to get a somewhat warped perspective of what businesses *should* do and who is really responsible for what.

After all, I choose to keep running Adsense on MY site when clearly I know that some of the ads that pop up will be scammy. And why do I let them run? Because they make money.

So how is that any different?

It's not. So it's a proverbial case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Wow. Amazing what a day off can do.

As to what I was originally thinking about hypocrisy - it had more with Google claiming to deliver high quality results, provide a great user experience - and yet allow all the crappy ads through - but it was probably a bit of a stretch.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Signature

Work At Home Truth - Extra Income Edition | Swindles.org

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

I don't understand what this thread is meant to complain about.

The Google Money is a huge scam that has hurt many people - and I have no problem with google going after those who promote it.

Google Money "kit" tells folks that google will hire them to work from home and pay high $$$ to them for doing so - for crying out loud, how scammy can you get.

If you rant about google, there will always be people who are happy to jump in and bash google. However, in this case, these folks were using google's name to scam people and I'm happy to see them shut down.

kay

I agree 100% with what you wrote but let's not forget that most of these Google Money 'offers' (scams) were run through the cpa affiliate networks and promoted by the affiliates of those cpa networks - including many members of the Warrior Forum. You only need to read the CPA section of these forums to see that some people had/have no problem in promoting a scam as long as it makes them money (and at $30 to $40 per lead some people made a lot of money).

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Signature

UK Affiliate Programs : Recommended UK affiliate programs and networks.
Kiva.org : Support an entrepreneur and change lives!

15 years ago

Google - Is This Hypocrisy?

No, nor is it about Google thinking they're some moral standard or whatever. It's trademark law 101, no matter how pretty or ugly it is. Don't turn a profit on someone else's trademarked business name, whether it's "Granny's Stop & Shop" down the street or Google. If they would have learned the rules before playing the game, they wouldn't have been in the mess they're in now.

If you don't like how Google plays the search/adwords/adsense game, great. Here's the solution to your problem: stop playing the search/adwords/adsense game with them. Nobody's twisting your arm & making you be involved with them you know.

It's too bad, but I think a lot of the smaller niches would be hard pressed to only use Yahoo or Bing.

Hmmph, wouldn't that mean that a marketer could be effective in larger niches with Yahoo & Bing, instead of the smaller ones with Google? Just a thought.

Todd

[ 0 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

Maybe Google can explain why they didn't ban advertising for all of these scammy Google products 6-12 months ago when the scammy Google kits were at their height of popularity? Is it possible they wanted the...MONEY?

Is it possible that it's their company to do whatever they want?

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

15 years ago

Originally Posted by shaddai

Is it possible that it's their company to do whatever they want?

Is it possible that the FTC has put pressure on them to shut down the scammy ads?

Yep. Because the FTC recently fined MoneyGram in a cutting edge "Gatekeeper Liability" case which Commercial Litigation Attorney Michael Webster discusses here:
MoneyGram and Gatekeeper Liability

"This is a fairly significant fraud case in which the FTC is using the breach of MoneyGram's statutory duty under the Bank Secrecy Act to adopt a Know Your Own Agent as the grounds for an action under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act to go after MoneyGram which enabled this fraud, instead having to sue the 131 Canadian agents and try to collect from them. (And the FTC alleges that 65 of these agents have already been sued by the FTC for Telemarketing Fraud.)"

Do your homework.

If you think Google is "doing whatever they want" you have a bit of reading to catch up on.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

Work At Home Truth - Extra Income Edition | Swindles.org

15 years ago

Um, I don't need homework, a couple minutes with a calculator is fine and some evaluating reality is fine. Moneygram runs just under 1 billion a year the last I checked & according to your link, they were hit with an 18 million dollar fine. That's less than 2% of revenue. Big deal, tell the accounting department to make up for it.

Besides, we weren't talking about moneygram, we're talking about Google....a company over 20 times larger than moneygram.

This is the deal: Google owns google.com and everything surrounding it, and have full ability to do whatever they do with it. Corporate tells the geeks to push the button and it happens, and they don't ask the FTC for permission. Nobody does. Do you?

If what they decide to do comes at the cost of the FTC climbing up their skirt, then that's clearly their choice to make, or deal with. Google is certainly financially sturdy enough to handle a battle with the FTC for as long as the FTC would like. I'm sure Google's smart enough to find out if the gains to be made at the cost of a battle with the FTC are worthwhile. A collection of full time lawyers to keep the FTC occupied for 30 years is well within their reach, and is a just a drop in the Google bucket.

Given the latest tangle that the FTC started with Microsoft, I wouldn't expect much to come out of a Google/FTC battle. Microsoft and the FTC settled their last tango with Microsoft just making a few promises.

Here's the thing, when you're an independent marketer, a tango with the FTC means you're bankrupt, the wife's gone and you're in jail. A play with the FTC is a scary thing to most of us. The headline of the big mighty FTC taking on Google is just that...a well written headline that gets the common reader's attention...just because they look at a battle with the FTC from a much different point of view.

To Google, the FTC coming after them means a few lawyers go see what the FTC want, maybe pay a fine here or there & get back to work. It's a small ripple in a 22 billion dollar businesses water.

[ 1 ] Thank this user
1 reply

15 years ago

Originally Posted by shaddai

To Google, the FTC coming after them means a few lawyers go see what the FTC want, maybe pay a fine here or there & get back to work. It's a small ripple in a 22 billion dollar businesses water.

I did read the rest of your post and I have to say you're definitely right. I've pretty much done a 180 on a lot of the things I was posting yesterday after a day off and being able to come back to it with a fresher perspective.

My brain was too locked into the path I was going down yesterday.

Sure, the FTC may be approaching things in a new way, but as you point out that doesn't mean it's going to matter for businesses like Google or MoneyGram at all.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Signature

Work At Home Truth - Extra Income Edition | Swindles.org

15 years ago

There are far bigger opportunities online than Google for traffic.

Who cares? This kind of attitude will never work out in the long-run anyway.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Signature

Click Here To Make Super Moniessss

15 years ago

In business building, to stay ahead, you do it the old fashioned way... getting customers and building relationships with them. It's refreshing to do business with a company that runs things right. That's the REAL advantage.

Very nice by the way.

Todd

[ 1 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

Hi Marc,

I still disagree.

Not because I don't follow the same guidelines as yourself.

But because the majority of people who are richer than me take the other path and deal with the consequences adequately, as simply another aspect of their business.

And I don't just mean internet businesses, or offline businesses. I mean all the way to the top.

Scammers are winning and running the world. People like us, with integrity, are a laughing stock. We're effectively disabled by our integrity.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
2 replies

Signature

Roger Davis

15 years ago

Originally Posted by ExRat

Hi Marc,

I still disagree.

Not because I don't follow the same guidelines as yourself.

But because the majority of people who are richer than me take the other path and deal with the consequences adequately, as simply another aspect of their business.

And I don't just mean internet businesses, or offline businesses. I mean all the way to the top.

Scammers are winning and running the world. People like us, with integrity, are a laughing stock. We're effectively disabled by our integrity.

Bro....I couldn't agree more with you'se.....

But at the same time......I am saddened by what appears to be a victim mentality on your part.....tossing in the towel even when Rocky said...."don't stop this fight or I'll kill ya..."

There's still room for integrity out there....because ultimately.....the end customer truly wants it.

We as marketers just need to do a better job of "positioning" ourselves more effectively...even if it's on a grass roots level...cuz greatness will ultimately reveal itself even when the powers that be try and stop it

Their will always be a market for honest marketers....with quality products.....even if our voice is small...and our numbers are smaller. I truly believe that...cuz if I didn't I wouldn't waste my time.

I whore myself out to google in terms of Ad Words.......because I know how to give them what they want. I take pleasure in kicking the ass of big companies who spend way more money to get way less in return then I do....and some monopolies can still be exploited.

I run ads under the key words "BARTER" and "BARTERING" for my upcoming Barter Arbitrage launch......and believe it or not .....I PAY WAY WAY less money per click then the big companies spending way more $$$ to have their ads run BELOW mine.

So in our case......big money doesn't buy our competition jack. We still dominate our niche.....we still get our ads ranked above people paying 5 times per click what we pay...cuz we play the game right.

(Thank U Perry Belcher by the way....everything you said was true!)

With that said......take a look at PayPal.

I have seen this evil empire literally freeze, screw, and destroy the lives and businesses.......of far more HONEST MARKETERS THEN DISHONEST ONES....... via their arbitrary bull**** policies.

And yet they are feared....like GOD.

People who have done nothing wrong....honest marketers who get their accounts frozen for no damn good reason.....will bend over and spread 'em for PayPal...because they are the only game in town...at least that's the excuse used.

I say bull****. PayPal can kiss my ass......and that's what I told them after they were froze my account a year ago...and were finally forced to refund every penny 181 days later.....and by the way...not even an apology much less a dime of interest they "held."

The day Google wants to screw with me...I'll find another playing field.

Fighting the machine is part of being a marketer and it sucks...but it beats working for a living, capiche?

And in the end....all we can do is create the best products we can create and get them into the hands of people whom they will help.

Because word of mouth is still powerful....because it goes viral..and nothing google can do...will stop that.

And because good stuff.....rises to the top....even if google, paypal etal treat it like a *******, red headed step child.

Ex Rat....you'se are one of the most brilliant dudes in this house. Everybody knows that. Your posts and Zen Mast Paul's always are required reading.....at least for me.

You owe it to yourself...and the rest of us.... to put out something some day.....and believe me...I'll buy it.

No google ranking needed, brother.

xxx Vegas Vince

[ 6 ] Thank this user

Signature

Buy High. Sell Low. Bank $ Top Selling Product Ever re: Exploiting the Secret Billion Dollar Barter/Trade Industry!

Save Lives. Make Money. Henry Ford would endorse this!

JayXtreme

JayXtreme

JayXtreme

Posts: Threads: Thanks: Account age: less than a second

15 years ago

Originally Posted by ExRat

We're effectively disabled by our integrity.

Agreed...

But, that doesn't necessarily mean we are disabled to the point that we lose too much ground.

In fact, whilst we may be disabled in one arena, we can excel in others where our integrity will count for much more

Peace

Jay
- [ 1 ] Thank this user
Signature

Bare Murkage.........

15 years ago

The bottom line is, Google is doing the right thing in this case. I can't see where it is hypocritical to protect your brand name from people who are scamming people and claiming to be from your company.

People who are buying these systems are being tricked into thinking the are getting something directly from Google. I know that some people would say they deserve to be scammed for falling for something like that, but there are a lot of people out there who really don't know any better yet. And who do you think they are going to be angry with when they don't make any money, or when they realize they aren't going to get a real 9-5 job with Google complete with benefits?

They're going to be mad at Google, because the ad claimed "Google is Hiring!"

Google has every right to protect themselves from this.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

ExRat

ExRat

ExRat

Posts: Threads: Thanks: Account age: less than a second

15 years ago

Hi Vince,

Thanks for the support, sincerely - it means a lot. I'll take it on board.

It's just sometimes you get worn down when it seems to be coming at you from all sides - big business you're affiliated with squeezing you out, the people you pay your bills to, the ex missus, stealth taxes galore, the guy who fixes your car, etc...

(Off topic) We've got 60 million people in this country roughly in the same boat as me, as described above. And a few hundred thousand others bankrupting the place, while the unelected flying Scotsman grins at us while he outbids Germany and France, determined to throw more billions than them (that we haven't even printed yet) at 'greening up' the third world.

Whatever happened to - 'if you aint got it, you can't spend it'? Oh don't worry about that, let ten generations of taxpayers' children pay that off later...

Sorry for the off topic rant. I feel better now. Back on the horse.

Cheers Vince
- [ 1 ] Thank this user
Signature

Roger Davis

15 years ago

It is all because Google monopolize the market. If there are the competitor, they will think their act.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Signature

Blogging Update

15 years ago

I think what they are doing is a good thing. Why should people use their good name to make money out of other peoples misery? I signed up to one of those products myself....thankfully I did some research and realised it is a scam and got out before any money was exchanged.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

15 years ago

Originally Posted by troy23

I think what they are doing is a good thing. Why should people use their good name to make money out of other peoples misery? I signed up to one of those products myself....thankfully I did some research and realised it is a scam and got out before any money was exchanged.

Check out some of the products "google" endorses...and you'll understand that it comes down to money long before it comes down to their desire to protect consumers from fraud.

xxx Vegas Vince

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Signature

Buy High. Sell Low. Bank $ Top Selling Product Ever re: Exploiting the Secret Billion Dollar Barter/Trade Industry!

Save Lives. Make Money. Henry Ford would endorse this!

15 years ago

Abit Offtopic: Google is going to release their own smartphone in 2010 sometime...talk about getting their fingers in everything.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

Google shutting down scams is fine with me. If you're mad at them, lead by example and boycott them, I'm sure a bunch of people will follow in your footsteps

Secondly the whole linking thing... Of course Google is going to say they rank on quality, it's a business why would they say they'll rank any old site that comes up with enough link juice... That wouldn't be good for business.

Would you expect Mcdonalds or Burger King to show you the actual burgers you get where they look like 4 day old road kill...? NO, they show you these perfectly cooked hamburgers on their commercials that look like they've been prepared by a world class chef... That's business folks.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

15 years ago

Okay, somebody answer this question for me.

Yes, many people reading this thread don't get that what Google is doing is
cracking down on Trademark infringement.

Great, I get it.

So why now?

Why wasn't this done when the FIRST Google Cash product came out God
knows how many years ago?

If somebody can give me an answer that makes any sense, I'm willing to
listen.

In the meantime, here is my take on why now.

It's simple.

Because the FTC is making a big stink and Google doesn't want to get
their own ass slapped. It has nothing to do with them caring that anybody
has infringed on their trademark. They especially didn't care when Google
name products were selling like hotcakes and Google was making out like
a bandit on PPC fees.

So can we please stop painting Google as a reputable, wonderful company
with nothing but altruistic ideals.

When business was good, they didn't give a crap.

Now that the sh*t is hitting the fan, they're cracking down.

Sorry, but in my eyes, that is hypocrisy at the highest level.

Right or wrong, that's how I see it.

And I am sure many other people will see it the same way.

[ 2 ] Thank this user
2 replies

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Okay, somebody answer this question for me.

Yes, many people reading this thread don't get that what Google is doing is
cracking down on Trademark infringement.

Great, I get it.

So why now?

Why wasn't this done when the FIRST Google Cash product came out God
knows how many years ago?

If somebody can give me an answer that makes any sense, I'm willing to
listen.

In the meantime, here is my take on why now.

It's simple.

Because the FTC is making a big stink and Google doesn't want to get
their own ass slapped. It has nothing to do with them caring that anybody
has infringed on their trademark. They especially didn't care when Google
name products were selling like hotcakes and Google was making out like
a bandit on PPC fees.

So can we please stop painting Google as a reputable, wonderful company
with nothing but altruistic ideals.

When business was good, they didn't give a crap.

Now that the sh*t is hitting the fan, they're cracking down.

Sorry, but in my eyes, that is hypocrisy at the highest level.

Right or wrong, that's how I see it.

And I am sure many other people will see it the same way.

Did you even READ that article that was posted?

Have you even SEEN the sites where people are screaming "GOOGLE IS HIRING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

They're using GOOGLE'S NAME to promote the product. It's not Google Cash they're suing, it's the people advertising it who are claiming to BE GOOGLE!

What part of this do you NOT UNDERSTAND?????? :confused:

[ 2 ] Thank this user
1 reply

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Taylor French

Did you even READ that article that was posted?

Have you even SEEN the sites where people are screaming "GOOGLE IS HIRING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

They're using GOOGLE'S NAME to promote the product. It's not Google Cash they're suing, it's the people advertising it who are claiming to BE GOOGLE!

What part of this do you NOT UNDERSTAND?????? :confused:

I get it and don't talk to me like I'm a child.

But they're suing for trademark infringement.

Trademark infringement has been going on since day 1, regardless of
whether the product using Google's name was legit or not.

Google Cash, as good as the product was, should have been sued for
trademark infringement on DAY ONE.

It wasn't because there were no complaints and Google was making
money.

It has nothing to do with the fact that these products that have since
come out are scammy.

Trademark infringement is trademark infringement no matter HOW GOOD
THE PRODUCT IS.

What part of that don't YOU understand?

[ 0 ] Thank this user
2 replies

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

I get it and don't talk to me like I'm a child.

But they're suing for trademark infringement.

Trademark infringement has been going on since day 1, regardless of
whether the product using Google's name was legit or not.

Google Cash, as good as the product was, should have been sued for
trademark infringement on DAY ONE.

It wasn't because there were no complaints and Google was making
money.

It has nothing to do with the fact that these products that have since
come out are scammy.

Trademark infringement is trademark infringement no matter HOW GOOD
THE PRODUCT IS.

What part of that don't YOU understand?

I'm treating you like a child because you're acting like one.

Again, THEY ARE NOT SUING GOOGLE CASH!

They are suing the AFFILIATES... who are PROMOTING it... by saying they ARE GOOGLE or that GOOGLE IS HIRING.

Do you get it, now?

In fact, the creators of the program should ALSO be suing those affiliates for lying in their marketing of the product.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Banned 15 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

But they're suing for trademark infringement.

Trademark infringement is trademark infringement no matter HOW GOOD
THE PRODUCT IS.

What part of that don't YOU understand?

So what ... I mean really. Let's say I had a great product at
site.com and
affiliate 1 registered bestsite.com and promoted the product in a way that reflected my ethics and made me a lot of money

then along comes affiliate 2 and registers best-site.com and promoted the product that did not reflect my ethics .... I WOULD CRUSH THEM, and use trademark infringement to do it.

Simple. Me likey affiliate #1
Me no likey affiliate #2

Why in the world does it bother you that they didn't sue until now?

[ 1 ] Thank this user
1 reply

15 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

So what ... I mean really. Let's say I had a great product at
site.com and
affiliate 1 registered bestsite.com and promoted the product in a way that reflected my ethics and made me a lot of money

then along comes affiliate 2 and registers best-site.com and promoted the product that did not reflect my ethics .... I WOULD CRUSH THEM, and use trademark infringement to do it.

Simple. Me likey affiliate #1
Me no likey affiliate #2

Why in the world does it bother you that they didn't sue until now?

So in other words, trademark infringement aside, if it's good for that
somebody is breaking a trademark law, then fine. But if it's bad for me,
they get sued.

Okay, I got it.

Wow...just wow. :rolleyes:

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

15 years ago

It's an irrelevance to apply attributes such as hypocrisy to an entity such as Google as if they were a person or even a private business.

They're a publically-owned corporation and their overriding responsibility, by law, is to their shareholders. In that context, their marketing stance (e.g. "do no evil") and any other public display of ethics is no doubt carefully orchestrated in relation to its potential effect on bottom line profits; or shareholder value, as it's now termed.

Thus, their consideration regarding the timing of this particular action would have been purely financial and their method of achieving the desired result would have been the most expedient, under existing regulations.

Hypocrisy doesn't enter into the equation.

Frank

[ 2 ] Thank this user
2 replies

Signature

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Frank Donovan

It's an irrelevance to apply attributes such as hypocrisy to an entity such as Google as if they were a person or even a private business.

They're a publically-owned corporation and their overriding responsibility, by law, is to their shareholders. In that context, their marketing stance (e.g. "do no evil") and any other public display of ethics is no doubt carefully orchestrated in relation to its potential effect on bottom line profits; or shareholder value, as it's now termed.

Thus, their consideration regarding the timing of this particular action would have been purely financial and their method of achieving the desired result would have been the most expedient, under existing regulations.

Hypocrisy doesn't enter into the equation.

Frank

This is a very good point, too, IMO.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Frank Donovan

It's an irrelevance to apply attributes such as hypocrisy to an entity such as Google as if they were a person or even a private business.

They're a publically-owned corporation and their overriding responsibility, by law, is to their shareholders. In that context, their marketing stance (e.g. "do no evil") and any other public display of ethics is no doubt carefully orchestrated in relation to its potential effect on bottom line profits; or shareholder value, as it's now termed.

Thus, their consideration regarding the timing of this particular action would have been purely financial and their method of achieving the desired result would have been the most expedient, under existing regulations.

Hypocrisy doesn't enter into the equation.

Frank

Frank, you and Taylor make some excellent points. And quite honestly,
I can't even argue with them.

But this whole thing, the timing, the action, all of it, just stinks as far as
I'm concerned simply because if you want to stick to the letter of the
law, as soon as the first Google product came out with Google in the
URL name, law WAS broken. That is undeniable.

But as Taylor said, maybe they were afraid of public opinion if they came
crashing down on all these sites. I don't know.

But trust me, I can give plenty of other examples where Google is most
certainly hypocritical as far as its "do no evil" slogan.

Can anybody say Sidewiki?

Nough said.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

When business was good, they didn't give a crap.

Now that the sh*t is hitting the fan, they're cracking down.

Sorry, but in my eyes, that is hypocrisy at the highest level.

Right or wrong, that's how I see it.

And I am sure many other people will see it the same way.

I misread what you originally posted - i thought you meant the first scammy Google Cash products which were pushed hard in late 2008.

As others have said - Chris Carpenter's Google Cash clearly wasn't endorsed by Google - AND it was aimed at a different target demographic that would be less likely to be confused in any account.

In a nutshell I agree with everything that Taylor French has posted regarding the Trademark Infringement issue.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Signature

Work At Home Truth - Extra Income Edition | Swindles.org

Banned 15 years ago

Originally Posted by lexilexi

Official Google Blog: Fighting fraud online: taking "Google Money" scammers to court

Why doesn't Google go instead after the companies in the Fortune 500 who are "participating in link schemes"? Why doesn't Google come clean, and instead of calling names, actually give a practical demonstration of how people SHOULD go about making money online?

The answer to that is simple. Those Fortune 500 companies are not infringing on Google's trademark and the Google scam companies are.

If I had a multi-million dollar trademark, you can bet I'd defend it too.

[ 1 ] Thank this user
1 reply

15 years ago

Why wasn't this done when the FIRST Google Cash product came out God knows how many years ago?

That's a totally different product and a different time several years ago. That ebook did not tell people how to cheat google or use the google name to cheat people - perhaps that's why.

Google Money is the "product" this thread was defending originally - and it's a total scam.

This particular scam became popular last summer, and google moved very quickly to shut it down. Adwords accounts promoting this scam began to be closed last June by google.

The idea that google would be reading marketing blogs to know what to crack down on is ridiculous. This is a massive corporation with a huge legal department.

I can understand frustration and complaints about google when something like Sidewiki is implemented. But how people can complain about google taking action against scammers is beyond me.

kay

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

That's a totally different product and a different time several years ago. That ebook did not tell people how to cheat google or use the google name to cheat people - perhaps that's why.

Google Money is the "product" this thread was defending originally - and it's a total scam.

This particular scam became popular last summer, and google moved very quickly to shut it down. Adwords accounts promoting this scam began to be closed last June by google.

The idea that google would be reading marketing blogs to know what to crack down on is ridiculous. This is a massive corporation with a huge legal department.

I can understand frustration and complaints about google when something like Sidewiki is implemented. But how people can complain about google taking action against scammers is beyond me.

kay

Kay, the point is, when that book came out (I think it was 2003 or 2004)
that was Trademark infringement, along with every other Adwords book
that followed.

Why didn't Google close them down on day one?

My point is, this has nothing to do with trademark infringement. It has to
do with scammy products that are now giving Google a bad name, getting
the FTC on their case and THUS...they NOW have to do something about
it.

But when the infringement was going on and everybody was making bank
and nobody was complaining, it was fine.

Sorry, but I call it as I see it...and it's name is hypocrisy.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

Banned 15 years ago

Kay, the point is, when that book came out (I think it was 2003 or 2004)
that was Trademark infringement, along with every other Adwords book
that followed.

Why didn't Google close them down on day one?

Since Google is the owner of the Trademark, they can pursue who and when they want to pursue. I personally would like to see them pursue all of them all the time and wait just long enough for the site to turn a small profit so it hurts more. Cybersquatters are little more than thieves trying to make bank on someone else's property and work.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

15 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Since Google is the owner of the Trademark, they can pursue who and when they want to pursue.

Of course they can. But why now?

I have yet to see an answer that truly explains why all these years these
Google trademark infringed products have been sold (making Google tons
of money in the process) nothing was done until now.

Trademark infringement is trademark infringement from day 1.

Not 7 years later.

Not when somebody finally decides to complain and make a stink about
the scammy products.

Sorry, not buying the arguments.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
2 replies

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

Banned 15 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Of course they can. But why now?
Trademark infringement is trademark infringement from day 1.
Not 7 years later.

Sorry, not buying the arguments.

In the long run, only Google knows why, but in terms of trademark infringement, they will prevail in an infringement dispute, so it doesn't really matter whether or not marketers get their panties in a bunch about it or not.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

15 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

In the long run, only Google knows why, but in terms of trademark infringement, they will prevail in an infringement dispute, so it doesn't really matter whether or not marketers get their panties in a bunch about it or not.

And that's not my argument either. Of course Google will win and of course
it doesn't matter when they pursued this.

All I am saying is that they are hypocrites because when these products
were making Google tons of money (hell, they were being promoted through
their own Adwords program for crying out loud so they had to know about
them) they didn't care.

NOW...when the sh*t is hitting the fan because of consumer complaints
and the FTC, Google is taking action because they don't want their name
dragged through the mud.

But as long as they were making money, it was fine.

Look up hypocrisy in the dictionary and you'll see a big G next to the
definition.

And I'm not getting my panties in a bunch. I couldn't care less about
Google. I use them for very little.

But they're hypocrites...plain and simple.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

sbucciarel

sbucciarel

sbucciarel

Posts: Threads: Thanks: Account age: less than a second

Banned 15 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

But as long as they were making money, it was fine.

But the same thing can be said about most marketers. As long as it's making money, fine. When the sh*t hits the fan, well, maybe it's not fine.

I'm not at all familiar with the products because I don't buy IM products, but I would imagine from what people have said, that the first product was not bad ... and then come the others, each one scammier than the last.

I'm no defender of Google. I personally hate them. Sidewiki is nothing more than theft, privacy issues abound, and on and on and on. But I will never defend or empathize with cybersquatters and others who steal intellectual property.

I'm also not a big fan of scammers, so if they bite the dust over this .... good riddance.
- [ 0 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Of course they can. But why now?

I have yet to see an answer that truly explains why all these years these
Google trademark infringed products have been sold (making Google tons
of money in the process) nothing was done until now.

Trademark infringement is trademark infringement from day 1.

Not 7 years later.

Not when somebody finally decides to complain and make a stink about
the scammy products.

Sorry, not buying the arguments.

I have to agree with Steven.

Google, or Gaggle, as I refer to them, is a for profit company.

In the past any product with [Google] in its name, Google Sniper, Google Ambush, etc, you get the idea, was free brand advertizing.

But now the only entity in the world that Gaggle seems intimidated by, the United States Justice System, wants to come out and play. They have their own ball and don't need Gaggle at all.

So the FTC decides they want to go after affiliates. Unfortunately for Gaggle, that group represents a lot of profit for them. But the potential FTC fines against Gaggle could wipe out a good part of that affiliate related profit, not to mention the legal bills.

Gaggle doesn't give a sheet about anybody who got scammed with "Google Cash" or Google "whatever", they care about their bottom line.

But now there is a new line item in their accounting ledgers, its called "FTC Fines and Related Legal Expenses."

That's why they have been mass banning people from adwords lately.

Is it hypocracy, yes if you measure against "do no evil"

If not, then no.............but that in and of itself is the hypocracy of the system we live and work in.

Just my opinion.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Signature

career change

15 years ago

Well, Google is right. First thing is that they can protect their name and secondly, we all know that all those systems are scams. They are just cleaning internet!

[ 0 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

Here is an article about it. Notice the screenshot of the site in the article. It's a fake news site that claims GOOGLE is hiring. It doesn't actually say anything about selling them a product. They claim that GOOGLE THEMSELVES are HIRING.

Fake "Google Are Hiring" Adverts Spammed On Twitter - SpywareGuide Greynets Blog

THAT is where the problem is. These sites are claiming that Google is hiring people to "work from home" and people are expecting a real JOB, not a "how to be an internet marketer using Google" program.

And they're getting mad at Google, which is definitely not good for Google's brand. It doesn't matter what you think of Google themselves, the fact is, they have a right to protect their brand from this kind of scamming and lies.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

Google like every other company is ever changing and ever adapting. There was a time when many of us here were loving the money we were making w/ our adsense arbitrage. However Google was taking a beating with an avalanche of made for adsense crapolla websites. They had to make a change, or continue to lose users.

I think right now Google is all about maintaining and growing their user base. They are taking pages from the Microsoft play book to do it. They are putting their finger into everyone's pie, and protecting their name for all it's worth.

I find it Ironic that now bing can come along and we're all of a sudden cheering for the other Monopolistic company that we once despised as much as google.

One thing is for certain though. The Internet is still an equalizer. Companies like twitter and facebook can pop onto the scene at any time and dominate. Just like we thought no one would come along to challenge Microsoft, and Google did. Eventually the internet will flock to a new giant.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

Steven, I apologize for being rude, but this is getting frustrating. I should not have talked to you the way I did, and my frustration is no excuse.

But I believe you are letting your anti-Google sentiment cloud your thinking about this matter.

They are suing the affiliates of Google Cash for claiming they are reporting "legitimate" news stories that say Google is hiring people to work from home. I've seen these sites myself first hand, and I've reported them straight to Google many times so Google could take action. I guess I wasn't the only one reporting them.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Taylor French

Steven, I apologize for being rude, but this is getting frustrating. I should not have talked to you the way I did, and my frustration is no excuse.

But I believe you are letting your anti-Google sentiment cloud your thinking about this matter.

They are suing the affiliates of Google Cash for claiming they are reporting "legitimate" news stories that say Google is hiring people to work from home. I've seen these sites myself first hand, and I've reported them straight to Google many times so Google could take action. I guess I wasn't the only one reporting them.

Apology accepted and I agree everything you're saying.

My point has to do with trademark infringement.

Legally, that occurred the MOMENT a product with the name Google
came out on a domain with the name Google in it.

Technically, Google should have been all over their asses from day 1.

Why weren't they?

Because they were using Google's Adwords service to promote these
products, thus making Google money.

Now, let's say that these products made insane claims and got tons of
complaints and those complaints were directed at Google, people thinking
that Google endorsed them.

Do you think Google would have let it go on?

No, they wouldn't have.

But as long as there were no problems and nobody was bitching, Google
let it go on.

Sorry, but in my eyes, that makes Google just a little bit hypocritical.

Or maybe I'm just an idiot.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Apology accepted and I agree everything you're saying.

My point has to do with trademark infringement.

Legally, that occurred the MOMENT a product with the name Google
came out on a domain with the name Google in it.

Technically, Google should have been all over their asses from day 1.

Why weren't they?

Because they were using Google's Adwords service to promote these
products, thus making Google money.

Now, let's say that these products made insane claims and got tons of
complaints and those complaints were directed at Google, people thinking
that Google endorsed them.

Do you think Google would have let it go on?

No, they wouldn't have.

But as long as there were no problems and nobody was bitching, Google
let it go on.

Sorry, but in my eyes, that makes Google just a little bit hypocritical.

Or maybe I'm just an idiot.

Steven, they're (as far as I know) not suing companies like Google Cash, Google Ambush, Google Payload, etc. for trademark infringement.

They're only suing the people who are blatantly lying by saying Google themselves are hiring. This is not only infringing on their trademark, but it also involves the much larger issue of making claims that are vastly not true.

In fact, it would probably be better if it were the FTC suing these affiliates rather than Google, because this is an issue of fraud. Google is just being proactive.

This isn't really an issue of trademark infringement as much as it is outright fraud on the part of affiliates.

[ 2 ] Thank this user
2 replies

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Taylor French

Steven, they're (as far as I know) not suing companies like Google Cash, Google Ambush, Google Payload, etc. for trademark infringement.

They're only suing the people who are blatantly lying by saying Google themselves are hiring. This is not only infringing on their trademark, but it also involves the much larger issue of making claims that are vastly not true.

In fact, it would probably be better if it were the FTC suing these affiliates rather than Google, because this is an issue of fraud. Google is just being proactive.

This isn't really an issue of trademark infringement as much as it is outright fraud on the part of affiliates.

That's fair enough, which actually further supports my point.

If no fraud was involved, there would be no lawsuit for trademark
infringement. It is only because this is bad PR for Google that they're
doing this.

I still want to know why any site that has used Google in its product
name or URL has not been taken to court?

Could it be because these people were making Google money in the
process so that made it okay?

Let's put it this way.

Let's say I came out with a site and called it GoogleSearch.com.

And in the process, I took tons of Google's business away from them,
legitimately...not doing anything unethical and not claiming to be Google.

Do you NOT think that they would come after me with guns blazing
suing me for trademark infringement?

THAT is my argument.

If it's good for Google, they look the other way.

if it's not, they sue.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

That's fair enough, which actually further supports my point.

If no fraud was involved, there would be no lawsuit for trademark
infringement. It is only because this is bad PR for Google that they're
doing this.

I still want to know why any site that has used Google in its product
name or URL has not been taken to court?

Could it be because these people were making Google money in the
process so that made it okay?

Let's put it this way.

Let's say I came out with a site and called it GoogleSearch.com.

And in the process, I took tons of Google's business away from them,
legitimately...not doing anything unethical and not claiming to be Google.

Do you NOT think that they would come after me with guns blazing
suing me for trademark infringement?

THAT is my argument.

If it's good for Google, they look the other way.

if it's not, they sue.

You could be right, but I personally believe that Google isn't suing the people who put out programs like Google Cash for a few reasons. The fact that they are earning money is probably only a small part of it.

If Google sued them all and put them out of business, other programs that don't advertise Google would take their place. I highly doubt Google would actually lose money over it in the long run. These products probably account for only a very minute percentage of AdWords' overall income.

Some of the reasons they may not have sued the product creators themselves might include:

Bad PR - It would potentially be seen as "evil" on Google's part to try to damage these small businesses who are trying to make a living by teaching people who to make money through programs like AdSense and AdWords. They could be following that whole "do no evil" motto that they claim to live by. (Not judging the validity of their motto, just stating it as a potential reason they may have chosen to not sue the actual creators of the products.) Nintendo tried to sue some fan sites for trademark infringement years ago and it gave them some pretty bad publicity. Maybe Google is worried about the same. Hurting small businesses could be seen as "doing evil" in the eyes of some people.
The Products Work - Some of the products are high-quality and do teach people how to use the Google programs effectively. Maybe they're actually fine with legitimate guides that help more people use their offerings effectively.
Too Many to Sue - And if you think about it, products like Google for Dummies or The Complete Idiot's Guide to Google are legally able to use Google's name in their products, so why shouldn't online information products? I'm no lawyer, but Google (or their lawyers) may know something I don't know as far as the legal ground they stand on in that regard.

Who knows why Google hasn't sued the product creators? But that was their choice, and it may have been the right one.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Taylor French

Steven, they're (as far as I know) not suing companies like Google Cash, Google Ambush, Google Payload, etc. for trademark infringement.

They're only suing the people who are blatantly lying by saying Google themselves are hiring. This is not only infringing on their trademark, but it also involves the much larger issue of making claims that are vastly not true.

In fact, it would probably be better if it were the FTC suing these affiliates rather than Google, because this is an issue of fraud. Google is just being proactive.

This isn't really an issue of trademark infringement as much as it is outright fraud on the part of affiliates.

Do you have any idea how much money the legal industry has made debating whether something is "blatant" and "untrue" [lying] or not.

I could say, "I bought "Google Sniper", didn't make any money with it, so it must be a scam"

Again, the only thing that has changed since Google began its world domination, is the fact that the government is now getting involved and Serge and Larry don't need anymore trouble.

God forbid some Congressman or Senator were to start thinking the words "Google", "monopoly", and "anti trust" all at the same time.

Gaggle is just trying to cover its butt now, so they can show that they "do only good" when the Senate anti-trust hearing eventually [2,3,4,10 years from now] begin.

Peace

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

career change

15 years ago

Originally Posted by FrankBowman

Do you have any idea how much money the legal industry has made debating whether something is "blatant" and "untrue" [lying] or not.

I could say, "I bought "Google Sniper", didn't make any money with it, so it must be a scam"

Again, the only thing that has changed since Google began its world domination, is the fact that the government is now getting involved and Serge and Larry don't need anymore trouble.

God forbid some Congressman or Senator were to start thinking the words "Google", "monopoly", and "anti trust" all at the same time.

Gaggle is just trying to cover its butt now, so they can show that they "do only good" when the Senate anti-trust hearing eventually [2,3,4,10 years from now] begin.

Peace

There's really no debating when an affiliate says, "Google is Hiring!" and then sends people to a product like Google Cash.

That is blatant lying.

They are telling people Google themselves are hiring people for legitimate jobs. Google (to the best of my knowledge) is not hiring people to work from home for a salary or hourly rate.

They are claiming Google is hiring to try to get people to buy the products they are promoting. And that is most definitely blatant lying.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Taylor French

There's really no debating when an affiliate says, "Google is Hiring!" and then sends people to a product like Google Cash.

That is blatant lying.

They are telling people Google themselves are hiring people for legitimate jobs. Google (to the best of my knowledge) is not hiring people to work from home for a salary or hourly rate.

They are claiming Google is hiring to try to get people to buy the products they are promoting. And that is most definitely blatant lying.

Attorney: Is Google paying you to palce their adsense ads on your site?

Witness: No

Attorney: So you get nothing from Google correct?

Witness: Well, no thats not totally true

Attorney: Please elaborate, so as not to commit perjury, you are under oath.

Witness: They pay me when someone clicks on one of their ads.

Attorney: So they do pay you?

Witness: Yes

Now this is very rudimentary, but you get the idea.

Look if they were selling this crap for a one time $67 or $97 price, we wouldn't be discussing anything!...Its the continuity, recurring billing, thats the problem.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

career change

15 years ago

Originally Posted by FrankBowman

Attorney: Is Google paying you to palce their adsense ads on your site?

Witness: No

Attorney: So you get nothing from Google correct?

Witness: Well, no thats not totally true

Attorney: Please elaborate, so as not to commit perjury, you are under oath.

Witness: They pay me when someone clicks on one of their ads.

Attorney: So they do pay you?

Witness: Yes

Now this is very rudimentary, but you get the idea.

Look if they were selling this crap for a one time $67 or $97 price, we wouldn't be discussing anything!...Its the continuity, recurring billing, thats the problem.

Google would likely have far better lawyers than the defendants, and their lawyers would probably try to persuade the jury by saying that the average citizen would define a "job" as being employeed directly by a company for a standard position that involved either a salary or an hourly rate, and potentially some benefits (but not always, obviously).

Take cases of "obscenity"...

Obscenity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In some locations, "obscenity" is simply defined (basically) as anything that would offend a large portion of the local population. There are no hard and fast rules for defining it legally in most jurisdictions. It's simply a judgment call.

The dictionary.com definition of "job" includes:

1. a piece of work, esp. a specific task done as part of the routine of one's occupation or for an agreed price: She gave him the job of mowing the lawn. 2. a post of employment; full-time or part-time position: She was seeking a job as an editor.

Now, the defense could argue that the first definition could apply. Google is paying people for a specific task at a (not actually agreed upon) price.

BUT, the prosecution could argue that most people would prefer the second definition of the word (meaning a full time or part time position) as the real meaning of the word "job".

The prosecution might call in all types of witness to present their case. They might hire a neutral firm to survey people on whether or not they would believe a job required a salary or hourly wage or if being paid pure "commission" or "piece rate", never meeting your "employers", not having any type of benefits, not having a boss to report to, etc. could also be defined as a "job".

My guess is that the majority of people would believe a situation in which you more than likely never met anyone from the company you worked for or even communicated directly with them, and where you were paid only a piece rate, and where you had NO specifically defined duties is NOT a "real job", it's freelance work or contract work.

I'm guessing the prosecution could successfully persuade a jury that there is no way most people would consider such a situation a real "job". But of course, that's just an educated guess. I'm not a lawyer, nor can I say I definitely represent "most people".

After all, how many times have you seen people posting on this very forum that their family and friends all kept screaming at them, "WHY DON'T YOU GET A REAL JOB?"

It's more than likely because MOST people don't see internet marketing, or being paid a commission with no salary or hourly wage or benefits, as a real job.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

@ Waggerz...

Post No. 58 in this thread pretty much sums up what ya need.

That's the top and bottom of it, imho

Peace

Jay

[ 0 ] Thank this user
2 replies

Signature

Bare Murkage.........

Jason Moffatt

Jason Moffatt

Jason Moffatt

Posts: Threads: Thanks: Account age: less than a second

15 years ago

There are a few sites that I seldom will say bad stuff about. Google, eBay, Paypal, and a few others.

Lets face it, Google is going to rule the world. Might as well get in good with them now while you can.
- [ 0 ] Thank this user
Signature
https://www.jasonmoffatt.com

15 years ago

This is right from Harvard Law:

If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue
subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. �� 1114, 1125.
The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a
trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it
is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as
to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers
are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors,
including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3)
the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity
of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the
typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect.
Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961).

Seems pretty straight forward to me and a lot more black and white
than, "If I like affiliate A and don't like affiliate B"

You're either breaking the law or you're not.

But again, if it's in the best interests of the company not to sue, they
won't. If it is, they will.

You can call it business.

I call it hypocrisy.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

This is right from Harvard Law:

If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue
subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. �� 1114, 1125.
The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a
trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it
is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as
to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers
are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors,
including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3)
the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity
of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the
typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect.
Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961).

Seems pretty straight forward to me and a lot more black and white
than, "If I like affiliate A and don't like affiliate B"

You're either breaking the law or you're not.

But again, if it's in the best interests of the company not to sue, they
won't. If it is, they will.

You can call it business.

I call it hypocrisy.

That says it right there, IMO.

(4) evidence of actual confusion
(7) the defendant's intent

In the case of Google Cash and similar products, they don't make any claims that they are Google, that Google is hiring, that they represent Google in any official capacity, etc.

On the other hand, those fake news sites put up by affiliates are specifically causing confusion (4) because their intent (7) is obviously to lead people to believe they can get a legitimate job at Google.

I suppose the defense attorneys for these affiliates could try to argue that they had a different intention, but I think the majority of people could see their intention clearly was to make people believe Google was hiring people directly for "real" jobs. That's why they make the pages look like legitimate news sites, and why the headlines scream, "Google is Hiring!"

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Taylor French

That says it right there, IMO.

(4) evidence of actual confusion
(7) the defendant's intent

In the case of Google Cash and similar products, they don't make any claims that they are Google, that Google is hiring, that they represent Google in any official capacity, etc.

On the other hand, those fake news sites put up by affiliates are specifically causing confusion (4) because their intent (7) is obviously to lead people to believe they can get a legitimate job at Google.

I suppose the defense attorneys for these affiliates could try to argue that they had a different intention, but I think the majority of people could see their intention clearly was to make people believe Google was hiring people directly for "real" jobs. That's why they make the pages look like legitimate news sites, and why the headlines scream, "Google is Hiring!"

Please don't get me wrong. I think all those ads are outright horrible and
I think these people should be strung up by their toes. I felt the same
way about "Get Google Ads Free" which was blatantly misleading and
yet, Google did nothing about them.

But any person can go to Google's search engine, look at the right hand
side, see "Sponsored Links" and see one of the Google products and
legitimately believe that Google was endorsing them. They're flat out
telling people, "Hey, folks paid to put these ads on our site"

In other words, "We approve of these ads."

If they didn't, they wouldn't let them run...right?

So somebody sees "Make Money With Google". Is it not possible that
they could assume that Google endorses the product?

Now, what if there are complaints about this product and they start
coming in fast and furious? What is Google going to do?

They're going to ban the ads for certain, but...and this is ultimately what's
happening now, they're also going to go after these people for trademark
infringement because it is the only legal recourse they have.

So again, I ask...why didn't they just say, right out of the gate...

"You may not use the name Google for any product name or in any web
site URL"

They would have certainly been within their right.

But they didn't because, up until that point in time, it was good for
business.

Now sh*t's going down that's bad for business so they're going the
trademark infringement route.

You can say I'm being nit picky, vindictive, anti Google or whatever you
like, but to me, the way this whole thing is going down stinks.

Especially with an app out there that can literally destroy somebody's
business that Google is doing nothing about.

As I said, I call 'em like I see 'em.

And IMO, this whole thing stinks...not that the violators don't deserved to
be fried, because they do.

But it should have happened a long time ago.

That's all I'm saying.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
2 replies

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Please don't get me wrong. I think all those ads are outright horrible and
I think these people should be strung up by their toes. I felt the same
way about "Get Google Ads Free" which was blatantly misleading and
yet, Google did nothing about them.

But any person can go to Google's search engine, look at the right hand
side, see "Sponsored Links" and see one of the Google products and
legitimately believe that Google was endorsing them. They're flat out
telling people, "Hey, folks paid to put these ads on our site"

In other words, "We approve of these ads."

If they didn't, they wouldn't let them run...right?

So somebody sees "Make Money With Google". Is it not possible that
they could assume that Google endorses the product?

Now, what if there are complaints about this product and they start
coming in fast and furious? What is Google going to do?

They're going to ban the ads for certain, but...and this is ultimately what's
happening now, they're also going to go after these people for trademark
infringement because it is the only legal recourse they have.

So again, I ask...why didn't they just say, right out of the gate...

"You may not use the name Google for any product name or in any web
site URL"

They would have certainly been within their right.

But they didn't because, up until that point in time, it was good for
business.

Now sh*t's going down that's bad for business so they're going the
trademark infringement route.

You can say I'm being nit picky, vindictive, anti Google or whatever you
like, but to me, the way this whole thing is going down stinks.

Especially with an app out there that can literally destroy somebody's
business that Google is doing nothing about.

As I said, I call 'em like I see 'em.

And IMO, this whole thing stinks...not that the violators don't deserved to
be fried, because they do.

But it should have happened a long time ago.

That's all I'm saying.

Steven, you're absolutely right that there are all kinds of scams going on that involve Google, and that a lot of them should have been taken down a long time ago.

But, I have only VERY recently (last few months or so) begun to see those sites claiming Google is hiring and using a news site format to do it. To an inexperienced internet user, those sites can look very legitimate. And they are being heavily marketed to millions of people through Twitter, Facebook, and via many websites that get millions of visitors.

You've probably heard the term "pick your battles".

Well, maybe Google thought it would be too expensive to take the small fries who were only reaching tens of thousands of people to court. Or maybe they thought it might be seen as "evil". Who knows?

But these ads are literally being seen by millions and millions of people. They have probably received countless complaints directly. Should they take the time, energy, and money to go after small time people who were only netting you a handful of complaints? Maybe not worth it to them. But I'm guessing they've received thousands of direct complaints about this.

You see, most people probably wouldn't complain directly to Google because they bought a product that claimed they could "make money with Google" and felt it wasn't what they expected. They would complain to the product owner, ClickBank, PayPal, or their credit card company. Most people probably would NOT complain to Google.

But when a "legitimate looking" news site (to an inexperienced internet user) claimed Google themselves are hiring, they might be angry enough to either yell at Google for "scamming them", or to realize that the people who did this were not actually Google and report the deceit to Google directly.

Maybe they just didn't "notice" the other sites or products, or truly didn't care, or they felt they didn't have enough legal ground to stand on, or they felt it wasn't worth the fight, or whatever.

But if you have thousands of people directly complaining, you kind of have to listen.

[ 1 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

But any person can go to Google's search engine, look at the right hand
side, see "Sponsored Links" and see one of the Google products and
legitimately believe that Google was endorsing them. They're flat out
telling people, "Hey, folks paid to put these ads on our site"

In other words, "We approve of these ads."

If they didn't, they wouldn't let them run...right?

Actually, I think the intent of the "Sponsored Links" text is the opposite of what your saying here.

Now, people may interpret them the way you are saying, but I would say in that case Google did the best they could to distinguish between "paid ads" and what Google actually endorses themselves.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Signature

Work At Home Truth - Extra Income Edition | Swindles.org

15 years ago

You miss my point, which is "it is debatable". And now the FTC is going to make sure the debates begin.

Look the products suck, they are scams. But the question is whether it is hypocritical of Gaggle to now be suing the the producers.

Ethically, yes.

Economically, no.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

career change

15 years ago

Originally Posted by FrankBowman

You miss my point, which is "it is debatable". And now the FTC is going to make sure the debates begin.

Look the products suck, they are scams. But the question is whether it is hypocritical of Gaggle to now be suing the the producers.

Ethically, yes.

Economically, no.

It's not about the PRODUCTS, Frank. The products are not being questioned.

It's about the affiliates who are lying to promote them.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Taylor French

It's not about the PRODUCTS, Frank. The products are not being questioned.

It's about the affiliates who are lying to promote them.

You make a lot of sense (in your previous post) and it's hard to argue.
Yeah, pick your battles. I guess.

But the products themselves, even the legit ones, are getting hurt in the
process.

Look what Chris is doing with Google Cash...he's giving it away.

Is that fair, not only to him that he can no longer sell this thing because
of all the bad press but to the people who actually PAID for the product?

Heck, even I may actually sign up to his list now and get myself a free
copy, not that I'm ever going to use it because I'm sick of playing
Google's Adwords game. I'm personally convinced that QS has more to do
with who you are than how good your site actually is.

And if you don't believe me, read Perry Marshall's blog about huge
corporations who have lost their Adwords accounts when they did
NOTHING wrong.

It's downright scary and quite honestly, I don't want to be at the mercy
of a company like that.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

You make a lot of sense (in your previous post) and it's hard to argue.
Yeah, pick your battles. I guess.

But the products themselves, even the legit ones, are getting hurt in the
process.

Look what Chris is doing with Google Cash...he's giving it away.

Is that fair, not only to him that he can no longer sell this thing because
of all the bad press but to the people who actually PAID for the product?

Heck, even I may actually sign up to his list now and get myself a free
copy, not that I'm ever going to use it because I'm sick of playing
Google's Adwords game. I'm personally convinced that QS has more to do
with who you are than how good your site actually is.

And if you don't believe me, read Perry Marshall's blog about huge
corporations who have lost their Adwords accounts when they did
NOTHING wrong.

It's downright scary and quite honestly, I don't want to be at the mercy
of a company like that.

I agree. It is scary. And Google should have done something a long time ago. I guess it was all of the fake "Google is Hiring" ads that finally brought it all to a boiling point. They probably sparked so many complaints that Google just couldn't ignore it anymore.

It's like someone who has a persistent cough. At first, it happens only once or twice per day. Then a few times per day. Then a few times per hour. Then it's so often they can't sleep at night, or they are disturbing their family or coworkers constantly, or they cough so much their throat hurts all day. They ignore it until it becomes such a big problem they can't ignore it anymore. (Then it turns out to be lung cancer and they waited too long for it to be curable.)

Who knows, maybe Google waited too long. Or maybe they didn't. But either way, I'm guessing these fake sites generated so many complaints that Google couldn't ignore it anymore.

[ 0 ] Thank this user
2 replies

15 years ago

Hi Steven,

Hypothetical -

Say I had a stock photo website. I sell photos for people to use commercially. I don't give them away.

Say Warrior A took one of my photos, used it illegitimately on their one site. It was a typical small site that made $80 per month and had 30 uniques per day.

Then say Warrior B took 5000 of my photos, blatantly used them illegitimately across loads of sites and made an absolute fortune in the process.

Then I discover the two breaches.

Let's assume that if I wanted to, I could sue for $2500 for use of each photo.

I send out a letter from my legal team and both parties remove the photos.

I then decide to take Warrior B to court for damages because they made a fortune from using 5000 photos and I lost a lot of revenue from not charging them for the photos. Also, due to the size of Warrior B's business and their choice to take 5000 photos, it is clear that there was no doubt in his mind that he was stealing them and that it wasn't correct.

I then decide to forget about Warrior A's breach because they are a small fry, and the breach probably didn't earn them much money, they are repentant and apologetic and I know that it will put them out of business.

Although Warrior A may have known it was theft, it's not as conclusive as in the case of Warrior B, who most definitely acted with intent. There's still the possibility that Warrior A did it with intent, but it also may have been because he was a dumb noob and didn't know better. A mistake made by many noobs.

.........

I realise that this analogy isn't an exact fit for the situation I am using it with, but regardless -

Would you be irate with me for being a hypocrite and not destroying Warrior A, even though they may have acted without intent, they definitely would be destroyed by my actions and I was convinced that it wouldn't happen again?

Again, it's not the same, but can you see the point?

Put it this way - if you have examined the extent of these misleading Google cash kit ads, you will know that the market is rammed with CPA marketers just waiting for the latest rebill tactic to appear, and when it does it gets copied so profusely and immediately blankets the media-buy markets to such an extent that overnight, similar ads appear to be on every major site that sells space to the media-buy market.

And there are a lot of these type of sites selling their ad space. The amount of people who are not internet savvy who were probably duped by this and thought they were finding out how to work directly for Google, and then got hit with an unexpected, uncancellable rebill must be absolutely staggering.

That's why there's so much profit in it. And that's why it spreads so fast.

Chris Carpenter's Google Cash may have been popular in the IM market, but even so, it probably had 10000 times less exposure. For every ad for the Google Cash ebook back then, there would be 10000 of these newer ads.

Think about that.

[ 2 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

Roger Davis

15 years ago

Originally Posted by ExRat

Hi Steven,

Hypothetical -

.
.
.

Think about that.

It's hard to argue with that kind of logic. I do see your point.

But is breaking the law only a little bit okay?

Where do we draw the line?

$200 in sales? $2,000 in sales? $20,000 in sales?

At what point do we say, look, you broke the law, you pay?

Even in criminal law, there are varying degrees of punishment. A guy who
is convicted of 1st degree murder doesn't get the same sentence as a guy
who is convicted of assault.

Shouldn't the little offender have something happen to him?

Or does he just get off Scot-free?

I in no way claim to be wise enough to answer this question, but I feel
it's one that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, tons of people are going
to get the impression that as long as they operate under the radar and
don't make a lot of money, they can do whatever they want.

I think that sends a bad message.

What do you think?

[ 0 ] Thank this user
2 replies

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

It's hard to argue with that kind of logic. I do see your point.

But is breaking the law only a little bit okay?

Where do we draw the line?

$200 in sales? $2,000 in sales? $20,000 in sales?

At what point do we say, look, you broke the law, you pay?

Even in criminal law, there are varying degrees of punishment. A guy who
is convicted of 1st degree murder doesn't get the same sentence as a guy
who is convicted of assault.

Shouldn't the little offender have something happen to him?

Or does he just get off Scot-free?

I in no way claim to be wise enough to answer this question, but I feel
it's one that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, tons of people are going
to get the impression that as long as they operate under the radar and
don't make a lot of money, they can do whatever they want.

I think that sends a bad message.

What do you think?

Unfortunately, big businesses don't usually make judgment calls based on morality or purely on ethics, but on sound business tactics. Sure, the little guys should have something happen to him, but it probably doesn't make a lot of sense to go after them from a purely business standpoint.

Google's job isn't to educate the public that even the little guys have something to fear. It's to protect their name. And in this case, the problems grew big enough for Google to notice, and for it to be worth it for them to go after them.

While we (as "little guys" ourselves) have the "luxury" of choosing to go after one individual who steals our products out of revenge or anger (if we choose to) even if it costs us more money than it's worth, big businesses really can't do that. They have to answer to their board of directors and their stockholders.

If they went after every little guy, it could cost the company millions in legal fees, and they might not win all of those cases. In this case, the stockholders and the board would probably be pretty upset.

In this case, the numbers are large enough to justify taking action, because Google's name is being tarnished by companies claiming to be representing them, and the companies are making enough money (in some cases) to be able to afford to pay Google's legal fees in the event Google wins.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Okane

Okane

Okane

Posts: Threads: Thanks: Account age: less than a second

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Shouldn't the little offender have something happen to him?

Breaking the law is not sufficient for being sued.

"Nullo actore, nullus iudex"

Marc
- [ 0 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Taylor French

I agree. It is scary. And Google should have done something a long time ago. I guess it was all of the fake "Google is Hiring" ads that finally brought it all to a boiling point. They probably sparked so many complaints that Google just couldn't ignore it anymore.

I assume you mean that Google should have done something a long time ago to protect their brand? Or do you mean anything else by this?

Why should Google have done something a long time ago?

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Signature

Work At Home Truth - Extra Income Edition | Swindles.org

15 years ago

I believe the thread is whether or not Google is being hypocritical, not whether or not the affiliates are.

...and lets not even go anywhere near affiliate ethics, the thread isn't big enough.

Peace

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

career change

15 years ago

Originally Posted by FrankBowman

I believe the thread is whether or not Google is being hypocritical, not whether or not the affiliates are.

...and lets not even go anywhere near affiliate ethics, the thread isn't big enough.

Peace

In that case, no, I don't believe Google is being hypocritical. I believe they are picking their battles from a business standpoint.

But it's mostly the affiliates that are in trouble rather than product owners themselves.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

15 years ago

Google is a scraper site that creates no content and has little regard for copyright. They now have the financial resources to pound into oblivion all but the largest of corporations.

Monsanto Chemical is their buisiness model. Sue then bankrupt the party being sued in court. You don't have to be right in court you just have to have the financial resources to outlast the other guy.

So Google chooses easy targets they can destroy. It's fear and intimidation.

The "Golden Rule"... he with the Gold Rules.

This is how all corporations work.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Signature

Internet Marketing IQâ„¢

15 years ago

Steven,

There's no requirement that anyone must sue when their rights are infringed. It's always a choice. Google chose to sue in this case after ignoring previous cases.

Let's assume you own a 5-acre piece of property with a gate at both ends. You have "No Trespassing" signs up at both gates.

For years one of the neighborhood kids takes a shortcut across your property. He's done it enough that he's actually worn a trail through your field.

Some time later another neighbor starts driving his truck across your property. Late one night (likely drunk), he takes out a few of your young fruit trees.

Would it be the least bit hypocritical to sue the second guy after ignoring the first? Sure, the second one might argue the point that the first kid's continual trespassing without action led him to believe it was OK, but civil cases are rarely black and white. Suing only the second doesn't make the first one right, nor would it make you wrong.

It would be hypocritical if you were also driving across HIS property that was also posted. That doesn't really apply in this case at all.

Google is just an easy target for ire.

[ 0 ] Thank this user

Signature

OFFLINE POWER TOOLS #1 - Offline MindMap (FREE WSO) | #2 - White Paper
#3 - Seminar Presentation | #4 - Offline Sales "Poster" | #5 - Offline Postcards
FREE Offline Consulting Video Series (No Opt-In)

15 years ago

One of my good friends stopped by the other day as I haven't seen him in about 6 months. Eventually the conversation goes toward making money online and he starts talking about how google is hiring tons of people to work from home..... O.o

[ 0 ] Thank this user
1 reply

Signature

I can help your business grow. Spend less time backlinking and more time focusing on your clients. Skype me anytime for more details. Custom packages available.

SENukeX Services

TelegramSam

TelegramSam

TelegramSam

Posts: Threads: Thanks: Account age: less than a second

15 years ago

Yes, Google can be a pain in the ass, but if it wasn't for google there would be a lot of people on this forum earning a lot less, in my opinion.

However, I think most people share a common concern when a company gets too big and all powerful.

But it's funny how lots of people who complained about microsoft having a desktop software monopoly, are now hoping they can start competing with google more effectively regarding the internet.

I think competition is a good thing and also hope bing, alta vista, yahoo and others dilute some of google's search engine dominance.

Then we won't have most of our eggs in one basket, even if that basket can be nice and warm and very profitable at times

Sam

P.S. - In the news today is an example of Google getting fined and perhaps is a good example of their hypocrisy. Here's the link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8420876.stm
- [ 0 ] Thank this user
- 1 reply
- AffiliateMax
  
  AffiliateMax
  
  AffiliateMax
  
  Posts: Threads: Thanks: Account age: less than a second
  
  15 years ago
  
  Despite the lawsuits, cpa affliates are still running 'Google is hiring' ads - eg:
  
  http://content.yieldmanager.edgesuit...c6b3dd98e4.gif
  
  [ 0 ] Thank this user
  
  Signature
  UK Affiliate Programs : Recommended UK affiliate programs and networks.
  Kiva.org : Support an entrepreneur and change lives!

Google - Is This Hypocrisy?

Trending Topics

Thank you, Kay King

Affiliate marketing

What's the fastest way to update Amazon affiliate links after buying a website?

Do you make a lead magnet in two versions? Mobile and Computer?

What WordPress Plugins Do Buyers Expect When Flipping Websites?

Bouncer - Powerful and secure email verification platform