Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

[Deko]

@betblow congratulations you just volunteered to update the wiki page with more info about the copyright issue :-)

[oblonsky]

Of course it's been observed for a long time that Phorm Inc. are buying their own keyword from Google just for this very eventuality. But it costs them each time someone visits their page through the sponsored link rather than the top-place serach result they've just lost!

[rryles]

HamsterWheel,

Your avatar image appears to be a derivative's work of a copyrighted photograph. I hope you have purchased a licence for such use?

http://www.fotosearch.com/RBL008/a01346/

[madslug]

Originally Posted by BetBlowWhistler

I notice that the wiki page didn't have much to say about the copyright issue

However, it does link to http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConBlogEntry.425 which is an excellent article for explaining what is being copied off websites.

[phormwatch]

http://www.periscopeit.co.uk/news/ar...ring-storm/257

"The working practices of digital technology company Phorm have been found to be of use to the government in monitoring private web use, according to Public Servant Daily."

Umm... what?

-----------

Ah - here is the article: http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=6728

It talks about 'what critics' say...

[icsys]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Google Phorm.

Looks what's top... its not Phorm.

But note that Phorm have paid for a sponsored link.
(No doubt to ensure that they don't get burried)

Originally Posted by BetBlowWhistler

I notice that the wiki page didn't have much to say about the copyright issue

That point can easily be addressed.

[rryles]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

http://www.periscopeit.co.uk/news/ar...ring-storm/257

"The working practices of digital technology company Phorm have been found to be of use to the government in monitoring private web use, according to Public Servant Daily."

Umm... what?

I wouldn't read anything into that. I think its based on this article:

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=6728

Critics have accused the Home Office of being complacent and naive once it was clear that Phorm was upsetting customers. They allege that Phorm’s technology is of use to the government in monitoring the private use of the internet.

Pretty shoddy work on the part of the author.

[phormwatch]

A note from a friend...

* Phorm plants first-person cookies in the name of various of the sites
that the user visits. *Richard Clayton has noted that it cannot be
guaranteed that these cookies will be invisible to those sites. This
raises the issue that an unexpected cookie arriving at the server, if
the server-side code works by enumerating the cookies, rather than
accessing specific cookies by name (something it is PERFECTLY entitled
to do - it was, up until now, entirely in control of its own
first-person cookies) then it may encounter a cookie containing
unexpected data that fails to parse, and cause server-side errors in
consequence.

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by rryles

HamsterWheel,

Your avatar image appears to be a derivative's work of a copyrighted photograph. I hope you have purchased a licence for such use?

http://www.fotosearch.com/RBL008/a01346/

However I would like to add a Glass Houses caution. I for one have many past sins in this field, although now even every single piece of music I have on my PC is purchased.

That is why I dislike the copyright angle, as it throws the light on so much more than Phorm. A few years ago I was working on a news scraper. Without saying too much I was involved with a major national newspaper and their attitude to infringement was: We will not stand for people ripping us off, however we will rip off everyone else as long as we can get away with it, including photo royalties etc. They would literally buy the first edition of a rival paper and scan and clean up a photo and include in their own, and let legal sort it out if anyone complained.

I'm not making such a clear point here, but it is unlikely that a lot of content providers will kick up too much of a fuss in this arena because their own practices may come under scrutiny.

I thought elements of what we were doing with the scraper infringed copyright but it also brought a genuinely new dimension. Alas the service was never launched.

I guess I'm wary that copyright law derives from the middle ages when printing presses were first invented, and let him without sin cast the first stone at the likes of Phorm in the internet age as far as copyright is concerned. However there is RIPA, and I've always thought that this angle is rock solid against Phorm and the ISPs.

I know many of you have differing views on this, and I respect you on those views, no need to ingnite another flame, I'm just pointing something out.

[phormwatch]

It's a fair point, oblonksy.

[madslug]

Originally Posted by oblonsky

Of course it's been observed for a long time that Phorm Inc. are buying their own keyword from Google just for this very eventuality. But it costs them each time someone visits their page through the sponsored link rather than the top-place serach result they've just lost!

Google were very clever when they decided to allow brands as part of the bid key words. The question is: does each click cost 8p or the default £2.50? It is interesting that the Google adwords tool associates the word 'phorm' with light and php scripts including smarty and forms, also design and maglites / flashlights including clip on book lights. No relevance yet for their products.

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by madslug

Google were very clever when they decided to allow brands as part of the bid key words. The question is: does each click cost 8p or the default £2.50? It is interesting that the Google adwords tool associates the word 'phorm' with light and php scripts including smarty and forms, also design and maglites / flashlights including clip on book lights. No relevance yet for their products.

Of course we know there are other companies called Phorm (http://www.phormdesign.co.uk/) who've been trading in the UK for longer than Phorm, and are in the website design business, so there are at least 2 companies have a right to buy that keyword in relation to internet marketing!

[rryles]

oblonsky,

I haven't cast any stones. I was offering a friendly warning to our fellow forum member that he might want to reconsider his avatar. It's quite possible he wasn't aware of the copyright on the image. Even if he has purchased a licence I don't think he is keeping to the terms of that licence. (See 1.4.6 of
http://www.rubberball.com/services/license.html)

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by rryles

oblonsky,

I haven't cast any stones. I was offering a friendly warning to our fellow forum member that he might want to reconsider his avatar. It's quite possible he wasn't aware of the copyright on the image. Even if he has purchased a licence I don't think he is keeping to the terms of that licence. (See 1.4.6 of
http://www.rubberball.com/services/license.html)

I know - it wasn't anything aimed at you, merely general points over where this argument may lead...

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by icsys

But note that Phorm have paid for a sponsored link.
(No doubt to ensure that they don't get burried)


That point can easily be addressed.

So if we link to the Phorm site from any of our own pages, we could make sure it is via the paid for link, - a sort of reverse OIX - using google to cost phorm money as a little protest against the way they plan to use Webwise to take traffic and visitors away from our websites.

Edit...
But I suppose it is illegal so we better not... ;-)