Facebook declares war on spammers?

[delldaniels2010]

This doesnt seem right

 

[Money Man]

 

[rocket]

1. start from scratch
2. use vcc to buy domains and hosting
3. refine your method
4. FACEBOOK DOESN'T KNOW WHERE TO SEND THE NEXT C&D.

 

[fun4uoc]

1. start from scratch
2. use vcc to buy domains and hosting
3. refine your method
4. FACEBOOK DOESN'T KNOW WHERE TO SEND THE NEXT C&D.

They do when they follow the money trail back to your aff account.

 

[Scritty]

So your a ex legal consultant for HM government? Interesting.

So your counsel is, consent to a offer to contract?

You do understand that the written admission of guilt, you suggested, is an acceptance of the offer to contract with officers of the court?

I get the impression you are reading something into my post that wasn't there.

I started by suggesting NOT making any offer at all.

However, by sending the letter back with details, and more tellingly a check, the poster I was replying to had already lost any battle for culpability he might be thinking of.

A minor point here "offer to contract" is not "acceptance of contract".

You can generally offer as often and as varyingly as you want. In UK law an offer to contract carries with it no admission of guilt either implied or explicit.

But in this case, as the guy I was replying to has already admitted the breach, and even sent in a check as reparation, then yes I would.

Any other course of action at that point would be - at best seen as backtracking, at worst (and more likely) seen as evasive and likely to prompt further and deeper investigation into the original offence.

The last thing he would want.

In the long run, after already admitting the offense, suddenly deciding to be pig-headed and not co-operate would not be a good move -
It would mean you were guilty and then obstructive - the worst of both worlds.

By offering mild placitude and restorative measures for an offence you have already admitted, you stand to come out of the situation in far better shape.

By sending the check and letter, the poster I was replying to was already guilty. They constituted a prima facie admission of guilt in themselves.

By playing softly softly he will be hopefully limiting his damage. That's all.

And yes. 11 years in export loan management (international import/export risk from none EU countries) in Whitehall, and before that I worked for the international banking arm of Barclays and various other FI's.

I met Nick Leeson once or twice during my time at Coutts (I'm 6 months younger than him).

Ironically, he's doing a lot better than me now, and I have never gambled 1.3 billion dollars of someone elses money away...typical.

FM and FM product is where I make most of my money now as an internet marketer. I can do things a little differently as I'm still accredited - until 2013 anyway.

It pays quite well, thanks for asking.

Scritty

 

[Money Man]

Wait, the OP actually sent FB a check? Damn, I would have just replied to the Cease and Desist letter and COMPLIED. I have never heard of someone actually sending FB money, although that is what they want/request. From my past experience with the various people that I know that have received such letters from FB, all they did was reply, comply, and THAT IS IT (and it was obviously good enough for FB, but if they scare you enough for you to send them money, they are not going to complain or reject your money, lol). Bottom line, there is no reason to send them a check though, lol. That Cease and Desist must have really scared the OP. But hey, as I have said before...it is a cheap scare tactic, and they will let you go as far as you are willing to go, even if it means sending them money.

However as long as you comply, they are generally happy because not only have they gotten their point across, but they have effectively made you CEASE AND DESIST.

 

[HazardPT]

FB ain't catching you spamming if you do it the right and smart way.

The best way to do it is to use people who have been in the game a while as proxies and drive the money to some solid currency exchangers that give you lots of options since they only care about taking a higher % of exchange fees if they feel its dirty.

The dumb and greedy are the ones that make mistakes and get caught.

When my BP hoster gets a C&D letter, he tells me about it and laughs and then just moves me to another server elsewhere.

 

[Megalomaniac Midget]

I started by suggesting NOT making any offer at all.
Scritty

Your a self-proclaimed ex legal consultant for HM government...why is that counsel wrong on so many basic levels?

Dishonour ring a bell? You have a current blackmores handy for reference don't you? The answer will not be in a english language dictionary.

There's a old roman maxim of law...gross incompetence is equivalent to fraud. All i see in your legal advice posts is numerous examples of gross incompetence...you really don't have a grasp of fundamental principles & procedures.

Where's the questions regarding locus standi? Proof of claim? etc? etc?

Why are you using "TV Police" criminal investigation metaphors for the paper shuffling of civil law? WTF?

The only sound legal advise is to go get professional legal advice.

If anyone uses some of the advice in this thread, they are going to get butt-raped so hard... your going to need too use a dining table as a butt plug.

 

[bennyb]

This letter sounds like a crock of shit.
First of all,lawyers did not write that letter.Lawyers don't use words such as "fake"
Secondly no way for them to pick you out from the crowd and last but not least they wouldn't know your address/name..
Did they send it sertified mail? Did you have to sign your name to receive it?

It's either one of your friends playing a joke on you or you made it up.
Either way I don't think it's a legit

To my big surprise to my home address i got a letter from Perkins Coie,company that has recently received a litigation against spammers on Facebook Sanford Wallace $711 million.
This is just briefly from me:

We represent Facebook,Inc based in Palo Alto,California.It has come to our attention that you are:

1.Create multiple or fake accounts on Facebook.
2.Sending unsolicited commercial email messages ( spam ) through the facebook network to facebook users.
3.Creating multiple groups for the sole purpose of furthering your spamming and scraping scheme.
4.Using personal profiles for commercial gain.
5.Stop using automated means such as scripts or scrapers without Facebook permission.

Facebook demands that you immediately cease and desist this activity.
Your activity is illegal,fraudulent and violates Facebook s statement of rights and responsibilities.

Should you choose to ignore this letter or continue your current improper conduct,facebook will take necessary measures to enforce its rights,maintain the quality of its site,and protect its users.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOMEONE GOT LETTER LIKE THIS EVER?

 

[ZeroKool]

Wow wow wow dont delete the profiles I'll take them from you if you dont mind I could use thoughs and not for spam reasons and no I have never got a letter like that I thnk myspace is great for the spam bots and what not facebook is to hard to use for these reasons as you have stated...

 

[Scritty]

Bro, where are you getting fraud from? I do not care if you can remain 100% anonymous, fraud is something I would NEVER touch. I am merely saying that if you are using fake FB accounts on a small (or large) scale, the most you will get is a Cease and Desist letter and your best bet would be to reply, and COMPLY.

I didn't bring it up. I was replying to the post about federal agencies getting involved if there WAS fraud.
I know you didn't, but whoever it was I was replying to said something about having Facebook's logo (intellectual proprty anyway) on a website, and that website made money.

If someone puts a companies logo on their website with the intention of gaining trust or credibility from it without the permission of the copyright owner, then any money obtained is considered "money obtained by deception" and it's criminal NOT civil.

The law in the UK and the US is more interested in INTENT than amount when considering the culpability of the accused.

Only during sentencing is the amount taken into account

I know that's not what you were on about, and I also know it's common practice (i see logo's all over the place where they shouldn't be)

The fact that it happens a lot, and most people get away with it does not mean it isn't a criminal offence.

If the copyright owner wanted to, they could press the button.

• The copyright theft is CIVIL - so you against them. "You can't use our logo"
• However, as soon as you start making money, and it could REASONABLY be assumed that the inclusion of the stolen intellectual property was assisting you in this (by adding credibility or trust to your site) then it's CRIMINAL

So it doesn't even mean that you had total reliance on the copyrighted material you used, the law is only interested in seeing if it assisted you to make money. At that point (and in most of the cases where issues like this have gone to court) ALL the money made is lost, and given either to the copyright owner, or into the system.

Don't take my word for it. Google it. (Try "Schindler's Logo" as a search phrase, Macdonalds logo has had a lot of this, remember the St Louis Arch? They have reaped cash from all sorts in the past, incuding charities and institutions that predate macdonalds)

HEre's an example that many people do. I've done this is in the past.

Near the sign up part of a web page you'll often find a block of payment options. You know Visa, Amex,Paypal, Mastercard etc.

If you are not associated with any of those, i.e your payment service provider does not offer Amex, but you show the Amex logo. The concievably, any money you make through that that portal COULD be challenged as money made by deception.

I've never heard of anyone getting done for this, and I see examples of it everywhere.

But the fact that no-one has ever been prosecuted, and that "everyone does it" does not stop it from being potentially criminal.

With Facebook it's different. Whereas these payment providers seem to not give a hoot whether you do this or not.

We know that Facebook are actively LOOKING for examples of intellectual copyright infringement and pressing the full force of the law on all they find.

That's the difference.

Amex couldn't give a fuck

Facebook are actively hunting and threatening prosecution

Obtaining money by falsely claiming association with another person or entity, even if it was just

"helping a bit" or
"improving my conversion rate" or even
"I just stuck their logo down the bottom to add a bit of oomph"...
.. is still obtaining money by deception. It's still criminal.

I know I'll get flamed for this, not least because it happens so often and so many people get away with it.

I've no axe to grind either, I couldn't care less. I'm just pointing out what the law says - and it's very similar in the US and the UK.

I know it doesn't apply yo your circumstances, I was replying to the guy who was doing this.

It's a risk, a very small one admittedly, but a risk none-the-less.

Facebook and CL are on my "can't ba assed" list. Both are too much trouble. You end up having to reinvent your system far too often with these bastards, normally at a cost of time and money. There's far easier targets out there.

Scritty

 

[IamNRE]

Before you believe anything you read on the internet, check your sources !

Someone called "Face book girl" is saying someone got caught for spamming. I say its BS!

She works for face book, this is just a scare tactic!

Dont pay her any attention.

 

[Scritty]

Your a self-proclaimed ex legal consultant for HM government

I don't proclaim it. Check your language

Dishonour ring a bell?

Yes, and that's why I stated that Facebook would not accept the check, and they didn't Your point?

You have a current blackmores handy for reference don't you?

No, i have no idea what you are talking about. Blackmores what?

There's a old roman maxim of law...gross incompetence is equivalent to fraud.

Is there? Nice, and how does this apply now?
Oh it doesn't does it. Damn, I was hoping exitus acta probat might apply as well. Funnily enough Latin phrases rarely find their way into modern legal statute. How old are the volumes your referencing?

All i see in your legal advice posts is numerous examples of gross incompetence

Only given one piece of advice, and that was for a chap who had already sent a check to FB. The rest (as I read it) is expressing in simple terms what copyright law is internationally, and clearing up some misunderstandings as to what constitutes deception and fraud.

How do you think the guy who has already sent a check should play it from here? How can regain a position of feasible none culpability?

Please do share this with us. I'm all ears. (you'd better open Wiki again and look up some more big words otherwise you might get stuck here)

Where's the questions regarding locus standi?

Eh? Locus standi applies does it. How exactly? (nice phrase, Latin as well - completely irrelevant here though isn't it? (Next time you might want to Google something that actually applies..just a tip)

Proof of claim? etc? etc?

He's already sent a check in form of reparation. What fucking planet are you on! Do you have a time machine? Ideally yes, go back and play it differently, but now, seriously "Mr 'Flamebastic' law expert" what would you do. (if I was you I'd get your colored bricks out and play in the corner)

Why are you using "TV Police" criminal investigation metaphors for the paper shuffling of civil law? WTF?

I don't watch TV (well sport and news) using language people might understand seemed a good idea. Obviously , since you started spouting off about irrelevant legal terms and quoting latin, the game has changed,
Well done for that by the way, really helping to clear stuff up there. Top job. Don't forget your colored bricks now will you.

The only sound legal advise is to go get professional legal advice.

Which I think was what was suggested in about the third or fourth post. I think the idea (and forgive me if i'm wrong) was that this forum might offer some quick and free suggestions, getting professional legal advice was about the first one mentioned (Did you read this thread? - i'm beginning to think not. ahh.. Got it, your a troll)

If anyone uses some of the advice in this thread, they are going to get butt-raped so hard... your going to need too use a dining table as a butt plug.

Oh well done, sort of a Hollywood ending there, nice.
Watch much telly yourself? Does your mummy and daddy let you stay up and watch TV with bad words in. Tut tut

Well, anyway thanks for your input. Did it take you long to write? Shame, you can never get that time back now can you?

 

[Scritty]

Thanks for the plus rep whoever.

It's appreciated.

 

[mikie46]

.. but they got my info from my registrar (stupid on my point) not from my cpa companies.

You are that stupid? To enter your real information at your registrar? Who the fuck does that now a days? I dont know anyone who has their real information entered at their registrar. Plus, a registrar has to get a court order in order to release or hand over a domain name even personal details. Thats a fact!

 

[Megalomaniac Midget]

@scritty

The only reason i commented in this thread was because of this advice you offered after stating your a ex legal consultant for the government, what if someone actually believed you?...here is one of your suggested remedies;

I would reply

"Apologies for using your logo, I had no idea this was CR theft, I was using it to promote facebook style activities, and will stop immediately.

It is hard to say how much money I made from this act. It is one of many ways in which I promote myself on the internet, including.

[list a load of other ways - whether you do them or not]

I have made very little overall in the past (x) months, and it might be fait to say 5% of that could possibly be attributed to this particular marketing style. It is probably quite a lot less.

Regards

Your name

Make NO offer - this might be the last you hear of them. Put the ball back in their court. You are telling them you will quit, and that you made sod all.

scritty please stop. Your giving dangerous, conflicting & miss-informed legal advise.

You don't understand law, stop fooling yourself. You say "make no offer", but your advice is actually an offer.

You don't even know about legal dictionary's, wtf?...its totally & absolutely impossible to understand & give opinion on any laws unless you can reference a legal dictionary. Although legal "words" may appear to be "english" language, the legal definitions can/will be completely different...its a totally different language, but its appears to be english.


This statement beggars belief?

I started by suggesting NOT making any offer at all.

You can't make the connection between that statement & "dishonour"? Ohhh, wait there...you don't have a legal dictionary, so how could you possibly understand the basic foundations of law when you have NEVER read it.

If you don't understand honour & dishonour in a legal context your pretense of "ex legal consultant to HM" is a fraud. Your remedy above is the path of dishonour, & makes "blank cheque" summary judgments possible..aka, court determination without a full trial.

FYI, Locus standi is "standing" & "might" be apart of the remedy for the dude who has already sent a check...and your asking how that applies? Some would say No legal standing is a free kick the demand to the curb with affidavits of proof of claim request...but, i'm not.

Because the only correct legal advise is to go get legal advise from someone in real-life, whose actually bar admitted....and thats not me or you.

 

[fun4uoc]

Because the only correct legal advise is to go get legal advise from someone in real-life, whose actually bar admitted....and thats not me or you.

Thats the smartest statement I've read so far on this thread. Lets all leave the advise at that.

 

[Parker Robbie]

Geeeeeze, 200,000 for spamming a few thousand people? Harsh.

 

[rhino999]

First Feds don't enforce civil litigation, the Senior VIP gettign busted from teh feds was doing something of criminal nature not civil. A C7D is a warning shot, one way to screw with facebook is to send a letter back to facebook stating that you believe due to massive internal control flaw at facebook you constitutional right have been violated and that the law firm they hired was negligent in there practices. Further we believe an internal investigation into these harassing practices will uncover internal control failures for Facebook in accordance to the standards of Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.

You just threw the grenade back in there camp. I did this to Intel in 2003 and made them backdown.

 

[cjmo75]

You live in Europe? Shit, spam away my friend. Nothing is going to happen to you. Especially if you live in a country that won't extradite to the US, not that it would even come to that.