GAW / Josh Garza discussion Paycoin XPY xpy.io ION ionomy. ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :)

[dave01]

The goods are offered at a discounted amazon price because there are no bank charges involved, understand amazon will love this and have been waiting for it for a long time.
Someone with a big warehouse is backing these sells..Hmmmmmmm

[kken01]

thats cool. you do understand what you can inlink via xss on GAW properties? it must be defined by your rules

[vObh0n]6W]

This cannot be legit as far as a affiliation goes as they offering them below amazons pricing. All they are doing is using amazon to populate their website as why build a real one from scratch for a scam. Come on guy we all realize this is just another scam do we not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  I bet anything amazon knows nothing about this and would have it shut down if they did.

Is there anything there that violate any of amazon's terms? Perhaps the pulling of images from amazon, but I'm not sure if that's explicitly prohibited. In particular, whether linking to images counts as use of "Amazon Software".

 There is nothing right about any of it and what tos/toa they are breaking depend on if they are affiliated or not. If they affiliated they are allowed to link as such but they cannot handle the money themselves and they cannot offer them for less than asking price. If they are not affiliated they are stealing the pics descriptions and hosting/bandwidth.
 Just plain dirty business and nothing legit about it.

Let's assume they aren't affiliated.

Which part of the terms say that you can't link to pics directly and copy the descriptions?

Read up on copyright and dmca and that covers the use of pics and inline linking.

Here's some links for you:

https://torrentfreak.com/embedding-copyright-infringement-eu-court-rules-141025/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/0109067611.shtml

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/12/19/is-hotlinking-stealing-does-it-infringe-copyrights/


Anyways, if it did violate the dmca amazon would need to send them a notice, and if it doesn't violate their terms they're unlikely to do so (plus they wouldn't care unless it's a lot bigger than it is now).

[kken01]

Here's some links for you:

https://torrentfreak.com/embedding-copyright-infringement-eu-court-rules-141025/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/0109067611.shtml

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/12/19/is-hotlinking-stealing-does-it-infringe-copyrights/


Anyways, if it did violate the dmca amazon would need to send them a notice, and if it doesn't violate their terms they're unlikely to do so (plus they wouldn't care unless it's a lot bigger than it is now).

yes amazon was waiting for GAW to break out in the world  

[kken01]

Here's some links for you:

https://torrentfreak.com/embedding-copyright-infringement-eu-court-rules-141025/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/0109067611.shtml

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/12/19/is-hotlinking-stealing-does-it-infringe-copyrights/


Anyways, if it did violate the dmca amazon would need to send them a notice, and if it doesn't violate their terms they're unlikely to do so (plus they wouldn't care unless it's a lot bigger than it is now).

maybe you should read more on this. specially what i pointed out

[vObh0n]6W]

Notice I linked to that above. Which part of it prohibits linking to images, or reselling items? Linking to a long document and claiming it says something isn't helpful. Excerpt the parts you think support your claim.

Read "LICENSE AND ACCESS" and the rest of it too. Is there a particular reason why you adopted Vlad's strategy of posting without reading? Is there a particular reason why you expect me to do your homework?

I read through most of the document, and saw that it doesn't clearly prohibit what coinstand is doing. (It depends, as I said above, on whether images count as software, which seems unlikely).

You made a claim that what they are doing violates the TOS. The burden of proof is on you, so don't try to get out of that by just telling me to read a document that doesn't actually support you.

[Boston_G]

This cannot be legit as far as a affiliation goes as they offering them below amazons pricing. All they are doing is using amazon to populate their website as why build a real one from scratch for a scam. Come on guy we all realize this is just another scam do we not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  I bet anything amazon knows nothing about this and would have it shut down if they did.

Is there anything there that violate any of amazon's terms? Perhaps the pulling of images from amazon, but I'm not sure if that's explicitly prohibited. In particular, whether linking to images counts as use of "Amazon Software".

 There is nothing right about any of it and what tos/toa they are breaking depend on if they are affiliated or not. If they affiliated they are allowed to link as such but they cannot handle the money themselves and they cannot offer them for less than asking price. If they are not affiliated they are stealing the pics descriptions and hosting/bandwidth.
 Just plain dirty business and nothing legit about it.

Let's assume they aren't affiliated.

Which part of the terms say that you can't link to pics directly and copy the descriptions?

Read up on copyright and dmca and that covers the use of pics and inline linking.

It appears the site is already down.

[jimmothy]

Notice I linked to that above. Which part of it prohibits linking to images, or reselling items? Linking to a long document and claiming it says something isn't helpful. Excerpt the parts you think support your claim.

Read "LICENSE AND ACCESS" and the rest of it too. Is there a particular reason why you adopted Vlad's strategy of posting without reading? Is there a particular reason why you expect me to do your homework?

I read through most of the document, and saw that it doesn't clearly prohibit what coinstand is doing. (It depends, as I said above, on whether images count as software, which seems unlikely).

You made a claim that what they are doing violates the TOS. The burden of proof is on you, so don't try to get out of that by just telling me to read a document that doesn't actually support you.

http://coinfire.io/2014/12/31/amazon-further-denies-paybase-gaw-miners-involvement/

[vObh0n]6W]

Here's some links for you:

https://torrentfreak.com/embedding-copyright-infringement-eu-court-rules-141025/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/0109067611.shtml

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/12/19/is-hotlinking-stealing-does-it-infringe-copyrights/


Anyways, if it did violate the dmca amazon would need to send them a notice, and if it doesn't violate their terms they're unlikely to do so (plus they wouldn't care unless it's a lot bigger than it is now).

maybe you should read more on this. specially what i pointed out

What exactly is your claim, that it violates the TOS, or that in general embedding images is illegal? I think I disproved the second enough, if you want to argue on that point then please provide sources. Maybe caselaw.

[5ick3uffalo]

  I bet anything amazon knows nothing about this and would have it shut down if they did.

It will get shut down - question only is: when.

[inspirone1]

Notice I linked to that above. Which part of it prohibits linking to images, or reselling items? Linking to a long document and claiming it says something isn't helpful. Excerpt the parts you think support your claim.

Read "LICENSE AND ACCESS" and the rest of it too. Is there a particular reason why you adopted Vlad's strategy of posting without reading? Is there a particular reason why you expect me to do your homework?

I read through most of the document, and saw that it doesn't clearly prohibit what coinstand is doing. (It depends, as I said above, on whether images count as software, which seems unlikely).

You made a claim that what they are doing violates the TOS. The burden of proof is on you, so don't try to get out of that by just telling me to read a document that doesn't actually support you.

Subject to your compliance with these Conditions of Use and your payment of any applicable fees, Amazon or its content providers grant you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable license to access and make personal and non-commercial use of the Amazon Services. This license does not include any resale or commercial use of any Amazon Service, or its contents; any collection and use of any product listings, descriptions, or prices; any derivative use of any Amazon Service or its contents; any downloading or copying of account information for the benefit of another merchant; or any use of data mining, robots, or similar data gathering and extraction tools

[dave01]

  I bet anything amazon knows nothing about this and would have it shut down if they did.

It will get shut down - question only is: when.

Why would they want it shut down?

[kken01]

What exactly is your claim, that it violates the TOS, or that in general embedding images is illegal? I think I disproved the second enough, if you want to argue on that point then please provide sources. Maybe caselaw.

lets hope you didnt mix up my comments with others
if what you say is true anyone with xss vulnerability is liable for content included

[vObh0n]6W]

What exactly is your claim, that it violates the TOS, or that in general embedding images is illegal? I think I disproved the second enough, if you want to argue on that point then please provide sources. Maybe caselaw.

lets hope you didnt mix up my comments with others
if what you say is true anyone with xss vulnerability is liable for content included

I said that embedding is fine. Maybe you confused me with the people who were saying embedding images was illegal?

[Subtuppel]

So GAW made at least enough money of the pump to pay a handful of shills for a couple of days again...
@ ikeboy, vlad etc. hope you could afford some (pet) food during the week before

[vObh0n]6W]

Notice I linked to that above. Which part of it prohibits linking to images, or reselling items? Linking to a long document and claiming it says something isn't helpful. Excerpt the parts you think support your claim.

Read "LICENSE AND ACCESS" and the rest of it too. Is there a particular reason why you adopted Vlad's strategy of posting without reading? Is there a particular reason why you expect me to do your homework?

I read through most of the document, and saw that it doesn't clearly prohibit what coinstand is doing. (It depends, as I said above, on whether images count as software, which seems unlikely).

You made a claim that what they are doing violates the TOS. The burden of proof is on you, so don't try to get out of that by just telling me to read a document that doesn't actually support you.

Subject to your compliance with these Conditions of Use and your payment of any applicable fees, Amazon or its content providers grant you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable license to access and make personal and non-commercial use of the Amazon Services. This license does not include any resale or commercial use of any Amazon Service, or its contents; any collection and use of any product listings, descriptions, or prices; any derivative use of any Amazon Service or its contents; any downloading or copying of account information for the benefit of another merchant; or any use of data mining, robots, or similar data gathering and extraction tools

The two questions here would be whether the "lack of license" implies that embedding is outlawed, and whether the images count as "proprietary".

That is, the part you quoted amount to saying "we aren't giving you the right to copy this", but they aren't directly saying "copying this is against the terms". They aren't claiming new rights, only saying that they aren't giving up their old rights. So the question would become whether they had the rights on embedded images in the first place.

In particular, the statement "or other proprietary information" may not include images of products.

But this is already lawyer territory, speculating probably wouldn't help.

[vObh0n]6W]

So GAW made at least enough money of the pump to pay a handful of shills for a couple of days again...
@ ikeboy, vlad etc. hope you could afford some (pet) food during the week before

Nobody's paying me to post. Maybe you could add to the conversation instead of contentless accusations?

[kken01]

What exactly is your claim, that it violates the TOS, or that in general embedding images is illegal? I think I disproved the second enough, if you want to argue on that point then please provide sources. Maybe caselaw.

lets hope you didnt mix up my comments with others
if what you say is true anyone with xss vulnerability is liable for content included

I said that embedding is fine. Maybe you confused me with the people who were saying embedding images was illegal?

if you say so, embedding directly sounds reasonable (not ethical but reasonable)

ok lets say this fictitious scenario then:
you would be the lawyer for GAW
everything embedded on the page is approved by the company

is that correct?

[suchmoon]

Notice I linked to that above. Which part of it prohibits linking to images, or reselling items? Linking to a long document and claiming it says something isn't helpful. Excerpt the parts you think support your claim.

Read "LICENSE AND ACCESS" and the rest of it too. Is there a particular reason why you adopted Vlad's strategy of posting without reading? Is there a particular reason why you expect me to do your homework?

I read through most of the document, and saw that it doesn't clearly prohibit what coinstand is doing. (It depends, as I said above, on whether images count as software, which seems unlikely).

You made a claim that what they are doing violates the TOS. The burden of proof is on you, so don't try to get out of that by just telling me to read a document that doesn't actually support you.

Oh dear, full on dipshit mode now, huh? And I used to think you have a valuable opinion

It is YOU who is making claims here, not me. Where did I make that claim that you're ascribing to me here? I specifically mentioned affiliate program and advertising API, and you're now making a claim that GAW is not using those, while common sense suggests otherwise. Do you have anything to support YOUR claim, let's start with how would you create and update a catalog like that MANUALLY?

The other fallacy you seem to be propagating here is that this is somehow about whether Amazon would want to sue GAW. They don't need to. They can just terminate their account for violating TOS. Deciding to not do business with someone is not against the law, unless there is some kind of contract in place. Is there?

No Amazon Service, nor any part of any Amazon Service, may be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without express written consent of Amazon. You may not frame or utilize framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo, or other proprietary information (including images, text, page layout, or form) of Amazon without express written consent.

[5ick3uffalo]

  I bet anything amazon knows nothing about this and would have it shut down if they did.

It will get shut down - question only is: when.

Why would they want it shut down?

Not Amazon.

But i have a hard time authorities watching all this happen doing nothing.

Even the dumbest fck knows what´s going on there: Going after people´s hard earned money. Pump/Dump/Scheme and started with hashlet PNG´s