PDA

View Full Version : Why does not yahoo take legal action?


tradermcduck
08-29-2001, 03:09 PM
Yes I am newbie concerning "scumware" but let me ask this kind of stupid question:

Why does not yahoo or any other biggie take legal action against these companies???

Did I miss something?

Please help...

WildComputer
08-29-2001, 03:39 PM
You would have to ask them

If they were preparing legal action, and we simply don't know if they are or are not, then they would probably want to prepare their case before taking action.

In my opinion, you probably wouldn't hear anything, until it reached the courts.

Also many big companies tend to move slowly. Not in all cases, but sometimes. Also many companies probably need time to digest and evaluate the situation before deciding how to proceed.

tradermcduck
08-29-2001, 03:59 PM
From my point of view there are only two possibilities:

Yahoo or some other big net companies use this technology in future, too => the end for small publishers

The biggies sue them and or find a way to block this.

So I think the problem will solve itself and the only thing we can do is to find a way to block this technology!

Doug Beeferman
08-29-2001, 10:29 PM
It's also possible that Yahoo doesn't find it to be a credible threat to their revenue. They may see it like ad blocking software, i.e. too few people use it to matter to their bottom line. They'd need to be convinced that scumware is on the rise and poised to infect a big chunk of their audience, for them to take action.

And whereas ad blocking software has high usership amongst business users, the kind that matter to Yahoo, the people who install things like MP3-trading programs are not likely to be "high-value".

They may further think that, since scumware doesn't provide a lot of real value to the end user, it will just die out by itself. Think of how many browser companion/plug-in programs have died in the last few years.

jemma
09-01-2001, 06:19 AM
tradermcduck wrote: Why does not yahoo or any other biggie take legal action against these companies??? ...

Doug Beeferman wrote: It's also possible that Yahoo doesn't find it to be a credible threat to their revenue. They may see it like ad blocking software, i.e. too few people use it to matter to their bottom line. They'd need to be convinced that scumware is on the rise and poised to infect a big chunk of their audience, for them to take action.

I haven't been here for a while, and have been slowly catching up on this topic (and there's a lot to read! :eek: links to more links to more links :bonk: ).

Anyway, it was mentioned on Slashdot and Revenews threads, that contextual links to porn had been inserted on Disney's website.

It's well known that Disney is militant about preserving their family-friendly reputation, and will go after anyone cashing in on their name, misusing their images, content, etc.

So while I agree with Doug that toptext, ezula, kazaa, may not represent credible threats to big businesses' bottom line, I have to join tradermcduck in not understanding the apparent complacency and public silence of the large companies in the face of this kind of assault on the integrity of their sites.

Wild Computer wrote: If [companies] were preparing legal action, and we simply don't know if they are or are not, then they would probably want to prepare their case before taking action. In my opinion, you probably wouldn't hear anything, until it reached the courts.

I hope you're right, but the silence is still troubling, no? If nothing else, it allows the issue to remain outside of the mainstream news. I probably wouldn't know about it, if I didn't read this BB.

(BTW, I still haven't seen an article about it in the NY Times - anyone else? Is it being reported where you live?)


Jemma :)

Click Here!