Quote:
Originally Posted by tdadyslexia
Hi Florence
I have a number of websites that ar Non Profit and host a number of websites for Non Profit Groops and charity websites as well, all of them ar covered by DHEA's Terms and Conditions what is very long.
From the T&C's
I think this will put a spanner in the works for Phorm.  |
You have not yet received one of Emma's little emails then, telling you that the wording on the site does not matter: the parsing script can't read it as it only looks at the 10 most popular non noise words. If you let google visit your site, phorm is free to visit too, make a copy and profile all your visitors from your content.
The one thing about this that makes me want to spit is that BT/phorm have the instruction all wrong. An intercept does not take place if the site being profiled hosts the oix advertising script. What is needed is a whitelist of all these sites: they are part of the oix partnership and can be profiled as much as they like (as long as they have the targeted ad script on their site).
Phormed ISPs, OIX partners and the handful of phorm shareholders who are happy to be profiled can all play in the little pond all on their own. Well away from the rest of us.
---------- Post added at 18:07 ---------- Previous post was at 17:55 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones
ACtually the phrase you should use is " sought, er.. obtained er legal advi - er opinion" - you are being far too UNambiguous. If you continue to make such precise statements there is a danger that people will know what you mean!!
Good on you. But I will be surprised if you get a reply. You can also try the BT Retail legal boys - they don't reply either.
Chief Counsel Commercial Law (Consumer), |
It would not surprise me too much if BT's in-house lawyers are busy catching up on everything to do with DPI and who may complain, who may need compensation, and who may be canceling holiday plans for a few years. One or two were happy to ask many questions a week ago. I expect they are not yet up to steam.
---------- Post added at 18:23 ---------- Previous post was at 18:07 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florence
Is it time a group of people start up a vouluntary help group bit like one that deals with helping small website owners fight larger companies using copyrighted content. Sure if one was started then we could try to get help from the EU just as other groups looking after the evironment, human rights etc.
Is it time to get more organised.
|
Most copyright / royalty issued are handled by just one body on behalf of everyone, i.e. records played on radio.
For website copyright / royalties to succeed they will need to be 'managed' by a similar body. Once it is set up, claims will be much easier to process. It is all a matter of getting everyone to agree the steps from A to B.
It is really easy for ISPs to report on which copyrighted sites have been visited by phormed customers - they have all the router logs - and from there it is a simple matter to add in the royalty charge for each 'impression'. No need to give any IP address information - all nice and anonymous.
If website owners want phorm to succeed then they charge less royalty than the ISPs' share of the advertising revenue. Charge just 1p more and the ISPs will soon want to be free of all the hassle of auditing the royalties due. [Anyone who supplies the copying equipment is also liable for royalties, so don't feel you have to limit what you charge for royalties to the ISPs' share.]
---------- Post added at 18:32 ---------- Previous post was at 18:23 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter N
If anyone was wondering how Phorm plan to implement their no medical, religious etc policy and thought that the system wouldn't create a profile then you may be enlightened by this quote from an interview with Kent.
" We will not let advertisers use words that might relate to sensitive topics such as adult content, medical conditions and so on."
In other words they are still going to gather the information and can process it and the only "control" on the use of that information is that the advertisers will be given a black-list of key words. Hardly the most secure solution since this is exactly how spam filters work and the amount of spam has increased year on year.
<snip> |
There is a lot more info to be gained from little quotes like that too. Advertisers can't use the words. Look at the other side of that coin too - I believe certain content sites from one of those phrases make up over 60% of search engine searches and are always looking for increase revenue from their advertising real estate. Of the rest, 10% now relate to pharmacy.