Are we legally associated with advertised services?

[Synchronice]

| ~ Snip ~ |

How many years is R Kelly in Jail, Kodak black served, 6ix9ine served, Surge tupac's boss still serving his jail time. What do you think of celebrities; little gods. Indeed it depends on your environment and the emotions you've got for these people. Law is above everyone depending on the level of evidence used on them. Nothing would happen in the world if the Police arrests Messi, his reputation would collapse like Terra. These are not even Government officials.

Are you paid to wear the company's Tshirt in street? so it's quite different from the forum signature since you're being paid to insert it on your signature space. Moreover, putting any code or url on your signature space doesn't guarantee payment.

R Kelly is not a celebrity and a famous person.
Kodak black - Do exactly what Kodak black did and let's see if you manage to escape the jail as soon as he did. I don't think anyone will commute your sentence ever.
6ix9ine - Again, commit what he committed and let's see if they'll release you from prison because of coronavirus fears.

We are currently renting our signature space on the forum for advertising purposes. We're not coworkers here; it's business

I know that very well, but I wouldn't be 100% certain that's true from a legislation point of view. There's room for doubt, especially when this kind of advertisement is a necessity for the service.

When a brand advertises on television and the company ends up with Punishment, the TV company should not be punished.

The TV company, though, doesn't advertise anonymous services. Ever. Companies that desire to be advertised in the telly are registered trademarks.

So, if TV company advertise company that is a registered trademark but the product of that company says in TV commercial that one of it's side effect is death, if this company advertises product that causes severe addiction development and brutal withdrawals, as far as I understood, this business deal is normal event for both side if the company has trademark. Well, strange.

Okay, I think the best way would be to ask this question someone who is anti-bitcoin and anti-crypto but is lawyer at the same time. If anyone has someone like her as a close friend, will be glad if we get updated, otherwise I think that our logic and the way of explanation may not be interesting in the court.
Sorry 

[1714132383]

1714132383

[1714132383]

1714132383

[aioc]

Okay, I think the best way would be to ask this question someone who is anti-bitcoin and anti-crypto but is lawyer at the same time. If anyone has someone like her as a close friend, will be glad if we get updated, otherwise I think that our logic and the way of explanation may not be interesting in the court.
Sorry 

Yes that's true but we can give a hint from the advertising giants like Google and Facebook they have a group of lawyers and are backed by legal firms, they allow the showing of platforms that looks legit but ended scamming people unless reported to them and they got notification they will allow these projects to be broadcast on their platforms, same to us here we will only discontinue until there are rulings or there are a lot of complaints and we don't have liability because we are not directly recruiting

[Synchronice]

Now I truly want to keep everyone's attention on one thing!
As it seems, there was a signature campaign in 2016 from a bitcoin mixer that seems to be closed as for now. Check Bitmixer.io signature campaign.
This company was paying users automatically from the website. So, I assume users were receiving bitcoins that were mixed and more likely some users would end up with bitcoins that were used for black market and other illegal activities. There are a lot of old forum members, so, has anyone ever had any problem from the payments received from the bitmixer campaign directly from the bitmixer website?
I think that case like this can be a dangerous. If you are promoting a company that the government thinks is a money launder machine and at the same time you actually receive a laundered money from that company, then you probably are in a huge trouble.
I think that this worries don't apply to those who receive money from the campaign managers.

[BlackHatCoiner]

So, if TV company advertise company that is a registered trademark but the product of that company says in TV commercial that one of it's side effect is death

You don't have to make it complicated. Advertising a product with deadly side effect would introduce other legal concerns. Let's just say that a TV commercial appeared whose company was later on caught to launder funds, and let's assume that company is anonymous for a while, so the feds can't just address the people in charge of the company. You think the TV commercial would continue?

So, I assume users were receiving bitcoins that were mixed and more likely some users would end up with bitcoins that were used for black market and other illegal activities.

Mixing Bitcoin isn't illegal. Laundering money is. Receiving coins that were used in illegal activity says nothing; you do that every day when you go to the supermarket.

[LoyceV]

I assume users were receiving bitcoins that were mixed and more likely some users would end up with bitcoins that were used for black market and other illegal activities.

I have euros, dollars and pound sterling that have most likely at some point been used criminals. Simple evidence: most bank notes contain traces of cocaine, and there are countless other crimes that don't leave physical evidence on the money.
None of this is a problem for me, because money is fungible. And no government would dare take that away, because if they do, it will be the end of money as we know it. Just imagine you can't accept money without checking known and unknown crimes committed by all previous owners.

[hilariousetc]

I assume users were receiving bitcoins that were mixed and more likely some users would end up with bitcoins that were used for black market and other illegal activities.

I have euros, dollars and pound sterling that have most likely at some point been used criminals. Simple evidence: most bank notes contain traces of cocaine, and there are countless other crimes that don't leave physical evidence on the money.
None of this is a problem for me, because money is fungible. And no government would dare take that away, because if they do, it will be the end of money as we know it. Just imagine you can't accept money without checking known and unknown crimes committed by all previous owners.

We all know that but that's never how it works. Criminals can and do easily use their dodgy black-market money on the high street and supermarkets etc but those places would never be prosecuted for money laundering or handling illicit money etc but you as an individual could be if they deem you are handling or interacting with illicit cash. It's sadly just how things work. I always find it funny how people cry that bitcoin is a tool for scammers and drug dealers but 99% of scammers just us bitcoin as a medium to sell for cash and most drug dealers don't accept bitcoin. They only accept cash because it's pretty much untraceable, is very easy to launder and there's no record of it kept, but nobody seems to be making that case right now. I'm sure they will do once they decide to go to a 'digital dollar' so they can keep an eye on everybody's transactions and tax is appropriately.

[Synchronice]

I assume users were receiving bitcoins that were mixed and more likely some users would end up with bitcoins that were used for black market and other illegal activities.

I have euros, dollars and pound sterling that have most likely at some point been used criminals. Simple evidence: most bank notes contain traces of cocaine, and there are countless other crimes that don't leave physical evidence on the money.
None of this is a problem for me, because money is fungible. And no government would dare take that away, because if they do, it will be the end of money as we know it. Just imagine you can't accept money without checking known and unknown crimes committed by all previous owners.

I mean, the government thinks that bitcoin mixers are used for illegal activities and it's something they don't like, right? And when you promote a mixer that was noticed to mix coins for darknets and you are directly receiving the money from their platform, doesn't it sound alarming and different from the situation that you gave me as a comparison right now?
This situation isn't exactly white and black area, it's between, the gray one.

But recently I was thinking about one interesting accident that happened some years ago.
There is a company called Driver Sports that was selling pre workout called Craze. This pre workout contained illegal meth-like substance. Finally, this pre workout was pulled from shelves but the company still operates and hasn't even stopped doing business ever. How and why? Especially if we keep in mind that this was one of the best selling and most hyped pre workout of all time.
So, right now I'm really confused who gets punished for what and what kind of logic the government follows.

[virasog]

I'm not into the law, and there might be differences in each country's legislation, but I'm concerned about this. Am I considered a co-worker of the services I advertise? If the authorities strive for shutting down one of these services in my signature and avatar, am I subjected to this activity as well? If the CEO of either ChipMixer or Betnomi (as examples) is proved to be guilty, am I guilty as well?

Asking a lawyer is probably a better idea, but I'm just curious if someone else had had the same concern before.

First, if you are advertising a service, you are being paid for it and you are not a co-worker. There is a difference between working for a company and being the owner and running a company.

Think of an example that you are a worker in a company. Later if the company do any fraud, the people working in the company won't be faced legal action, only the owner will be held responsible or the board of directors in case the company operate on that model.