This the same A Hanff who threatens to punch pro-phorm individuals ? Pot, kettle.

Quite possibly - however, I was making the general point (applicable to all parties) that involving the innocent bystanders is just not fair play. Plus threatening something and carrying out actual actions that affect people could be seen as two different things.

I can confirm; a link was posted by a Phorm supporter on NoDPI to pornography. I asked Alex to remove it immediately.

If you were in any doubt, it was a timely reminder of the reasons why the privacy/ security/ integrity of the UK telecommunication network must be protected from people who can’t be trusted.

Phorm have read the allegations on the NoDPI website, and utterly refute the implied suggestion that this company would stoop to such a level. This is another example of the smear tactics used by a small number of ‘privacy pirates’, who have removed the alleged evidence. We invite you to go to stopphouplay.com to see their past allegations, and read the facts on Phorm for yourself.

Re Phorm’s reply,

You really should employ someone who can read, as usual you’re selectively quoting. The articles here and on no DPI specifically state Phorm “Supporters” a word you have omitted in your reply, but spin, weasel words and wriggle room are your speciality.

JO - thanks for the comment, you got there before I could

Phorm - I wasn’t attacking Phorm but using what has happened as a way of highlighting the lengths people (in general)sometimes go to on the internet.

There is no implied suggestion that this was the direct work of Phorm the company and the blog post very clearly states that it was Phorm investors who were responsible for the action.

As for evidence being removed - that is also not true. We have complete logs of the events and are considering our legal options.

Also, I don’t think promoting Stop Phoul Play is the most sensible move you can make given that the information on there is incredibly libelous and in promoting it you are very clearly attempting to defame myself and other individuals mentioned on there.

If you think you have got away with the defamation present on that site you are wrong - legal action is still very much on the cards.

I will be publishing another blog post in the next couple of days illustrating exactly how Phorm choose to “play the game”.

Dear Sharon, Jo and Alexander

As you can see from the comments on the NoDPI site, people have already started attenpting to link the company to the spam attack.

Oh dear, maybe I should have used another example. Stirred up a bit of a hornets nest haven’t I?

@Phorm

I took your suggestion and had a look at stopphoulplay.com but your claim of reading the facts about doesn’t fit with the actual content of that site.

The site has lots of bluster and allegations about other people, but mentions nothing about phorms history as 121Media, their involvement in the developement of rootkits and spyware and the fact they closed down when the FTC came looking for them.

There is no mention of the trials that phorm conducted illegally with BT during 2006 and 2007 while they were not registered with the ICO.

Facts on stopphoulplay.com? More like fiction, mixed with a large amount of bile.

Hey Phorm,

Why haven’t you published the legal opinion which says that Webwise is completely compliant with all UK law and EC directives?

BERR say they’ve never issued anything like that. The Home Office say they aren’t legally qualified so it can’t be something they’ve said?

You have had over a year to publish this advice. Given that EC Commissioner Vivian Reding is taking action against the UK government over BT’s secret trials of your Webwise product there is a definite belief that Webwise *is* in breach of law.

Prove me and Commissioner Reding wrong.

Imagine for a moment, you’ve only just learnt about Phorm, and you’ve found this article. You go and look at both noDPI and Stop Phoul Play.

You see the work of Phorm on stop Phoul Play, publicly slating people who are opposed to the technology, selectively quoting articles so it shows them in a more favourable light, then you go and look at noDPI, where those same people have letters from various government departments and other organisations clarifying the facts, It would be perfectly possible for that person to assume that the dirty spam tactics was just the sort of activity Phorm would adopt.

@ Alex Hanff - have you paid your $45,000 fine for copyright infringement yet ?

If it’s facts Phorm want to talk about facts then let’s talk facts:

1) Phorm’s failure to publish qualified legal opinion arguing that Webwise is legal

2) The changing face of the Stop Phoul Play site (condemned by IT media, PR media and the mainstream media) as its “facts” are highlighted as untruths (as recorded on the NoDPI forums)

3) Legal threats against those who reproduce information already in the public domain

4) BT only admitting its secret testing of Phorm’s technology when confronted with evidence by The Register (who Phorm claim is nothing more than “a mouthpiece”)

5) Phorm’s PR people editing Phorm’s own Wikipedia page

6) The Guardian ditching Phorm stating their decision was influenced “in no small part down to the conversations we had internally about how this product sits with the values of our company.”

No smears, just facts.

Hamster,

I have never been fined for copyright infringement - that is merely another libelous fabrication of Phorm’s.

Alex Hanff states “it was Phorm investors who were responsible for the action.”.
I don’t suppose he can prove that can he ?
No, thought not.
More holier-than-thou mudslinging from the man with the unpaid $45,000 fine for copyright infringement.

I see Alex Hanff denise the fine.
Here it is
http://www.stopphoulplay.com/Hanff%20-%20Default%20Judgment.pdf
If its libelous you’d sue.
Pay your fine. Utterly disgraceful.

As any intelligent person knows, fines are issued for criminal actions, not civil litigations. That document shows that a judgement for damages was awarded to the MPAA not a fine.

However, the other important fact you choose to ignore when posting these comments all over the web is that the judgement was issued by a US court against a UK citizen living in the UK. No US court has international jurisdiction thus rendering the judgement completely invalid.

So have you paid it ?
And do you dare go on holiday to the US ?
Thought not.

PS Who’s this hamster ?

Why would I pay an invalid judgement?

What is invalid about it ? The Court has decided. Are you saying that laws should be broken at will ? How odd from someone who will try to bend any law to try and suggest that Phorm’s activities are illegal.
I notice you duck the question about the US holiday.

Actually I have been to the US since the MPAA nonsense and it had zero effect on me whatsoever.

The court is welcome to decide what it likes with regards to US citizens or people in the US - it has absolutely zero right to pass judgement on people in other countries though.

Furthermore, the US Court were lied to by the MPAA when questioning their authority re: jurisdiction. The MPAA lawyers deliberately lied to the court stating I lived in Illinois which is simply not true - neither have I ever visited Illinois.

Your continued attempts to get a rise out of me on this issue have failed, but they do make you look incredibly stupid.

@ N S Fletcher

It seems that you are typical of phorms supporters, you fling dirt at others, you try to belittle anybody who doesn’t agree with phorm and their attempts to invade other peoples privacy, and offer no constructive arguments in favour of phorm and their technology.

With allies such as yourself, there is no wonder phorm are slowly dying a death from a thousand cuts. Their supporters are doing far more damage than the campaigners when it comes to the way phorm are viewed by investors.

Phorm are attracting flies in the same way other noxious substances do, please carry on with the great work you’re doing for them.

Or you could actually try engaging properly. (Hear that sound? That’s called laughter.)

@N S Fletcher

What exactly are you trying to achieve here? ( perhaps that’s rhetorical ). Default Judgements are made all of the time, especially in the absence of the defence.
They are not a “fine” as you incorrectly point out above. A judge simply agrees with a plaintiff and orders in their favour.
It is then up to the plaintiff to enforce collection or to levy property and put a garnishment on earnings. I think you’ll find that impossible when the judgement holds no sway in UK law. I myself had a judgement I never paid as payment is an admission of liability.
A civil judgement means very little.

And I return to my opening statement. What does this have to do with anything? The fact is that at least one Phorm supporter ( I’m unsure about the other one who’s tactics cause his comment to be contradictory at times ) was being inflammatory on the NoDpi forums which is a pain for some but I personally enjoy exposing their inadequacies when they turn up. The obfuscated link to porn was posted on the forums.
This is the fact of the matter and the point of this article so quit your bluster, you are looking remarkably foolish.

So if the judgement was wrong then you’ve surely had it overturned ? Or is it just your opinion that it is wrong ? I’ve heard that most criminals in prison think they’re innocent.

and after that last statement I’ll be moving on. You obviously don’t have the slightest clue about the law, the difference between civil and criminal. Enjoy your bluster, it must be fun for you.

Nice try Panasonic, but would you not agree that if a judgement was made against you then it is a very bad thing to have hanging over you, and if its wrong then you’d get it reversed ?

@ the person whose screen name was likely inspired by a famous fictional criminal….

Why would Mr Hanff need to have the judgement overturned?
The judgement was made by a court that has no jurisdiction over him, based upon information that was at best unreliable.
There is no need for him to take action to have it overturned, unless the mpaa were to try and have it enforced. For such to happen, he would have to be within the jurisdiction of the court, and should such a thing arise, the information that the judgement is based upon could then be callenged.

Unlike you, it would seem that Mr Hanff understands this, and is therefore happy enough to leave the situation as is, rather than spending money fighting a case that he doesn’t need to.

If all you have is smears against campaigners, I would suggest you keep quiet, you just make yourself look foolish each time you say anything.

If you had provable facts that phorms systems are legal, and market research to show that people wanted the service, you wouldn’t need to try smearing people, you’d silence them with facts.

The fact that you carry on harping the same old tune shows you have nothing.

Phorms boat won’t float, get over it.

“Why would Mr Hanff need to have the judgement overturned?”

Reputation ? Dignity ?

Reputation Management 101

Divert attention away from the real issues. Use personal smears to do so.

Desperation.

Dead company walkin’. Comin’ through.

@ Fletch

The only people who seem to be concerned about Mr Hanff and the possible damage to his reputation from that judgement seem to be phorm and their supporters, who seem to think it is a major issue to concentrate on.

The fact that they grasp at it to disguise their own bad practices and terrible reputations rather than promoting their good points would seem reason enough to leave it be.

Everytime phorm and their cronies concentrate on it, they just continue to prove they have nothing to promote themselves with, and people will see it for what it is.

Mr Hanff may as well save his money, and allow phorm to carry on as they are.

So again, why should he bother?

Let’s have something new from you shall we, how about you show us the proof that phorm have a legal product?

What about the market research that claims people would love to have their service?

A proper denial of their involvement in spyware maybe?

Answer the question as to whether thay had the chat with the FTC that they were wanted for?

All the bluster in the world from phorm and their supporters will never convince people that their product is sound, and that it is legal.

I guess by the amount of noise and the buying of shares earlier today that the financial statements are ready to be released, and they are seeking to divert attention from the real issues. (those issues being a dwindling bank balance and no product ready to market)

Any chance we could get back to the topic I started?
Do any of you think it’s ethical to attack your opponents in such a way as to probably affect the innocent bystanders???

Sharon - Phorm are only batting back a tiny amount of the unsubstantiated rubbish that has been dreampt up by these so called innocent bystanders. Seems they don’t like it when it’s turned back on them.
It is very noticable that since Phorm decided enough was enough, the level of anti-Phorm insults on the Nodpi website has dropped hugely, as has the number of posts there. So a clever ploy by Phorm that has worked very well.

@ Sharon: No, not at all.

However as the post directly after yours proves, phorm and their supporters don’t seem to feel the same way.

The very words of N S Fletcher show how they view anybody who doesn’t directly support them: “these so called innocent bystanders.”

That seems to be the average level of engagement by phorm, if you don’t support them, you must be guilty, of what, it’s not clear, but sure as hell guilty of something, anything.

The tactics employed so far by phorm don’t fit well with any standard of ethical behaviour, why should they worry about the bystanders?

The bystanders aren’t their supporters, so they must be on the other side.

When any company has to stoop to the level that phorm have, they may as well shut up shop there and then, because they have already lost the publics trust and confidence, and they obviously have nothing solid to prove their case.

If phorm were so confident that they had a legal product, they would have publicised the fact properly, they would in fact probably scream it from the rooftops, instead all that is seen is smear after smear, with dubious statements claiming support of various government agencies.

I must apologise for being one of the people who have spoken off topic here, but overall, I think the level of debate here has shown how low things can go when phorm becomes the subject of discussion.

phorm are happy to engage - only last month they had an open public meeting. Where most of the chief antagonists refused to attend. They also refuse to let anyone at all in favour of Phorm post on their website, banning them or “removing” their posts.

As for whether the phorm product is legal, that is for the Courts to decide. But the antis think they know best, and know what is best for everyone. Condescending bunch arent’t they ?

@ Alex Hanff

I almost got distracted by your attempt to draw the discussion into one about the legalities of your $45,000 problem.

However, the real subject you are trying to avoid is why you were in trouble with them in the first place.
Why do you think it was fine for you to ride roughshod through copyright laws yet now seem to have a huge problem with what Phorm amy or may not be doing with copyright on the sites that their ISP users are visiting ?

Is it once again you having one rule for you and one for Phorm ? It certainly seems like that.

Phorm claim to be happy to engage, that I will grant you, yet on the nodpi website, there is a long list of unanswered questions that they won’t answer, so it is fair to say they selectively engage with their opponents, rather than being open. They have even gone so far as to not bother returning answers even when people have included a stamped, self addressed envelope for them to enclose their reply.

As for the open public meeting, they also did the same the year before with a promise to release unedited video of the meeting, a promise they failed to deliver on, why would people want to attend another that was arranged more like a press conference?

How good of you to point out that only the courts can decide that phorm will need to face the courts to see if their product is legal, you have just blown away their claims that they are legal, thank you.

Yet you still don’t answer Sharons question properly I note, do you think it is ethical to drag innocent bystanders into things?

I think it is highly unethical to drag innocents into it by posting obfuscated links to pornography on a publicly viewable forum, how do you stand on the subject?

Phorm started a smear campaign, they claim it was in response to false allegations, if the allegations made against them were false, why didn’t they take the matter before the courts?

As for nodpi banning people, or removing their posts, from what I have seen on there, they seem to ban people who are trolling, that I will grant you.
I’ve yet to see them stifle a well debated point though, maybe phorms supporters need to raise more points of debate, rather than concentrating on attacking people.

You talk about long lists of unanswered questions.
Tell me what company who haven’t even launched a product yet details all its commercial secrets ?
Of course Phorm won’t answer some of the questions. Once the product goes live then I’m sure that all the answers will be available.
Phorm explains at length loads of things on its website, and goes to the trouble of organsising meetings to take questions. Yet the antis just continue to sling mud and moan that it hasn’t answered every single one of its often impertinent questions.

They ban many people, including that hamsterwheel chap who Alex Hanff threatened with violence, yet post on his forum on advfn.

Once again, another example of the one-sided nature of the debate that is all that is allowed by the antis.

How about you stop doing an impression of Kent and actually answer the question posed, rather than deflecting them and subtly changing the subject.

The questions they (phorm) have refused to answer aren’t commercially sensitive as such, they are just damned awkward for phorm because they show that phorm have been less than generous with the truth, and have been overly generous with misleading statements if answered properly.

Phorm shows plenty of opinion on it’s website, but goes to great lengths to not explain things, such as fraudulently passing themselves off as the intended recipient of a communication, forging cookies in the recipients name, and commercial exploitation of other peoples copyrighted works.

As for hamsterwheel being banned at nodpi, from what I saw that was well and truly deserved, he was a troll, nothing more, nothing less. He raised very few proper points of debate, and constantly tried to provoke emotional off topic reactions.

You accuse others of mudslinging, yet a lot of your posts here today have been attacks on Mr Hanff and his character, based upon suspect evidence. I would suggest you are merely seeing reflections of your own behaviour.

“such as fraudulently”

You see what I mean ? You’re acting as judge and jury when they haven’t even launched.

Utterly disgraceful to treat a British business in this manner. Shameful even.

To get back to Stop Phoul Play, the site has CHANGED several times since it was first put online. Several of the defamatory statements have been removed. So my question is (@ Phorm) WHY were those claims made in the first place, and WHY were they removed? I thought the site was about THE TRUTH - so did you get it wrong? I’m tracking that site automatically so I can specifically refer to each allegation that has been taken down. They include the wrong identification of an individual, from forum usernames, a smear about Richard Clayton, and a number of statements/claims relating to the BBC, the Home Office, ORG, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, the 10 Downing ST petition site, and the blackbeak blog. Surely Phorm weren’t telling porkies were they? I thought they used reputation management lawyers Schillings to keep them right on such things.
I also note that all the changes relate to people or organisations who can afford libel lawyers. The allegations about ordinary private citizens with limited financial resources remain. At least one of the smears is an abuse of privacy.

Only lying vindictive bullies usually behave in this fashion. Yet Phorm want us to believe they are a reputable privacy enhancing company. People must form their own judgement, but I believe anyone reading StopPhoulPlay and following the links, will not find it difficult to make their own mind up.

PREDICTION - once the questions start getting specific Phorm tend to disappear from the forums/comments. This post will not get a specific comprhensive answer covering each and every point - although I expect a diversionary smear or two to follow. Probably an abusive comment or two about individuals.

Ah, but BTC. You conveniently forget that what Phorm have put on their site is nothing compared to the mud that your colleagues at nodpi have slung at them.
Bit of a cheek to come over all offended when you don’t promote the moral highground in your own playground.

@ Fletch, yes, fraudulently passing themselves off.

I dare them to take me to court for libelling them if they feel otherwise.

They have no rights at all to pass themselves off as the intended recipient of a communication that is not intended for them, especially if my website is the intended recipient.

They also have no right to presume I consent to them doing so, and therefore I do not need to opt out of their system, they have to seek a licence from me to use any content I own the copyright to.

So try again, when it comes to content I own the copyright to, I am entitled to act as I see fit, and that includes deciding they need a licence. Until they obtain such licence, passing themselves off as me is acting in a fraudulent manner.

As for the whole sorry line of treating a British business in such a manner, please, try another.

They are British insofar as they have an office in London and are working with some British ISP’s, they are a Delaware listed company, with shares traded on AIM, they are about as British as the pope.

quick check at companies house refutes your statement.

Oversea Company Info
Registered at: CARDIFF on 12/08/2005
Country of Origin: UNITED STATES
Parent Registry: STATE OF DELAWARE, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS
Registration Number: 3533689
Governing Law: DELAWARE GENERAL CORPORATION LAW
Legal Form: PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED BY SHARES
Number of Branches: 1 Open
Documents held at Company / Branch office: BR008336
Required to publish accounts from: / to /
Accounts delivered to: 20061231
Objects of the Company: TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF ON-LINE CONTEXTUAL ADVERTISING

So quit bleating about that one eh? Also it’s quite xenophobic of you to be harping on about British jobs when we have a free global market in an open EU community.

hmm the first part of my statement was lost but I was saying as the chap above does that having a UK registered office and targeting the UK market with it’s dubious business model in no way makes them a British company.

It is rather telling, is it not, that rather than issuing a writ against the firm in question for libelling him (and Mr Hanff is very certain that he has indeed been libelled) he instead continues to post this tosh in public forums. If he is so sure, so keen and so credible then why not find a good libel lawyer?

So where does an anti go to find out if Phorm is “officially” British ? Companies House !
Oh the irony of it !

Oh another stooge.

I think, aphormation, that if you took the time to read anything rsther than to jump to conclusions you would be aware that the issue is being dealt with and legal advice sought.

Do you get paid to trot out this nonsense?

Name & Registered Office:
PHORM UK INC
2711 CENTERVILLE ROAD
SUITE 400, CITY OF WILMINGTON
19808, COUNTY OF NEW CASTLE
DELAWARE, USA
UNITED STATES
Company No. FC026153

sorry Hammy, you can’t avoid the facts.

Pasanonic :
2nd Floor
Liberty House
222 Regent Street
London W1B 5TR

@ aphormation
If phorm libel me, I can say here and now, that I will not be able to do a thing about it, because I can’t afford libel laywers. So the question about private citizens and why they don’t issue libel writs is really a very silly one. The question is why haven’t Phorm ever sued ME for libel? After all, they CAN afford lawyers, and they use Schillings who are well worth a google. And it seems the SPP smear site has the backing of Patrick Robertson - have a google on him too. In this debate occupying the moral high ground is embarrasingly easy. All that is required it to stay out of the sewer.

I repeat - the SPP statements against organisations that can afford or have access to libel laywers have been removed from the SPP site. The ones against private citizens of limited means, remain. What does that tell you? It tells you a lot about cynical vindictive bullying behaviour and how to apply it.

But all this doesn’t really matter. Phorm’s nemesis will not be in the libel courts, but when their partner ISPs quietly walk away from those disastrous “agreements” to do whatever it was they agreed to when they listened to Phorm’s PR. Because with government and the EU gradually closing in on the legality of Phorm’s favoured DPI business model, the writing is already on the wall.

BTC - simply not true. Plenty of libel lawyers will take you on on a no win no fee basis.

http://www2.carter-ruck.com/conditional-fees/index.html

The reality (Pasanonic) is that no libel brief worth their salt would touch Alexander Hanff with a bargepole. Especially as libel damages can only be gained if the subject has suffered damage to their reputation. Having been slammed with a massive fine for file-sharing shenanigans and having published lurid details of his dysfunctional family (including abuse by his parent(s) ) online it makes one wonder how the SPP site could have sunk Hanff any lower.

Of course they would go to companies house. That is where companies register. Where would you expect them to go?

You seem to have lost your way.

You can’t answer the questions presented to you, so you start making comments designed to provoke. How very typical of phorm and it’s supporters.

So what next phorm types, more insults, or read the questions again and try to answer them?

Start with Sharons that you have yet failed to answer properly, “Do any of you think it’s ethical to attack your opponents in such a way as to probably affect the innocent bystanders?”

Well when you decide what your attitude is to comparing Ertugrul to Hitler and Himmler perhaps you’d carry more weight.

As I said Hammy. having a UK office does not make you a UK company. They are a Delaware company registered as such with the UK governement as required by the companies act in the UK. The address in Delaware is the address they registered with.

I’m bored now. Carry on with your nonsense.

Or perhaps aprivateman you can comment on the ethics of a group of paranoid middle aged men trying to destroy a small IT firm and along with it the careers, income and self esteem of dozens of staff.

@ Aphormation.
You joined nodpi claiming to be a virgin customer with no knowledge of phorm other than ‘a mate going on about it’ and a couple of hour’s later you are an expert with inside knowledge of Alex’s reputation and how a retained brief would act under contract?
It’s ok to be a supporter of Phorm, be it for personal, commercial or poor mental health reasons. At least do people the courtesy of laying your cards on the table rather than insinuate yourself with lies and subterfuge.
And now I really am gone.

“poor mental health reasons”

If there ever were proof needed of exactly who holds the moral high ground Pasanonic has given everyone the answer. I look forward to Google cacheing this page for posterity!

Ah, so you want me to put aside my own sense of ethics, put aside my own right to privacy, put aside my own commercial interests so that phorm and partners can exploit my work for their profit?

Nice try, but that still doesn’t answer Sharons initial question does it?

Is it so hard to answer?

Why would you expect answers from me when none of you have the courtesy to answer the question asked in the article?

Not at all aprivateman, but you could at least recognise that we do still live in a free(ish) country. Therefore if I have a technology that Firm A want to buy and use and Firm A tell their customers about it and their customers are by and large OK with it, and revenues at Firm A go up because the monopoly of Google over online advertising is broken then that is a perfectly legitimate occurance.

As for Sharon’s question, I’m than happy to answer it, no I don’t think that the debate is served by resorting to petty and personal insults. I wish people would engage more with the technology. Sadly though there are a group of people who have explicitly said they want to see the death of Phorm. Hard to argue with that sort of irrational attitude.

@ aphormation - I see you have reached your natural level with your lastest comments so I am butting out of here too. Rationbal debate appears to be impossible, and I don’t like swimming in the sewer. Once again - I urge people to do their own research and compare the sort of tactics that you have seen used here and on Phorm’s SPP site with the factual analysis you will see from campaigners against Phorm. Incidentally ALL of the main print newspapers (including the previously Phorm-friendly Daily Telegraph) agreed incredulously, that the SPP site was a Phorm PR disaster of stupendous folly. So it isn’t just us that think it was below the belt. Follow the links, read the stories, ignore the smears. It’s easy to make up your mind. Then ask why Phorm can’t get anyone to speak up for them, why the ISPs won’t back them, why the government are stepping back smartly, why the EU are coming down like a ton of bricks, and why the shares aren’t still at £35 each. Just a few neo-Luddite tinfoil hatwearers? I don’t think so.

Tedious little troll that you are Fletcher, I think you’ve certainly convinced me today that Phorm isn’t a wonderful thing at all. And I didn’t have an opinion until I read this article. Thanks for helping me make my mind up about your ilk.

There is a difference though, as a website owner, phorm will not seek to gain consent from me, the presume that my content is theirs for the taking, when this is not the case, they have to ask me for a licence. That is already established by law, they have no right to commercially exploit my work without prior consent.

I would never seek to deter your right to use a legal technology, but if the technology infringes my rights, I will take steps to seek compensation and to prevent further abuse.
Asking me to opt out if I don’t like it is not sufficient, and saying that if I allow google to access my sites, I have to allow them (phorm) too is also not correct. The search engines can index my work and will actually cause me to get more visitors, it’s a symbiotic relationship. With phorm, they will exploit my work if I allow google to have access, and send people to their partners, unless of course I join their service and carry their adverts for them. That is wrong, it is nothing better than a protection racket.

I don’t rely on advertising to promote my sites, I don’t need to, the search engines do my work for me, and I don’t have to pay them a penny, nor do I have to carry any advertising for them to do that work. Phorm cannot do the same for me, they will divert people away if there model is a success.

At least you had the decency to answer the question Ahphormation, and I’m obviously happy to see that the answer is a good one, thank you.

If anyone still has any doubts at all about Phorm and their ’supporters’ they need look no further than the comments in this blog to see them in their true colours.

Would anyone trust a company like this with their data? Hardly.

All this rot about the website owner total rubbish.
Do Google ask everyone if they’d like their websites to come up on searches ?
No they don’t.
If you stick a webpage up, and let others look at it, then they can do what they can show it to Phorm if they like.
If you don’t like it, go sue the individual for letting Phorm peek.

@Hammy.

Do Google ask everyone?
Og course they do. What do you think the robots.txt is for. It is this exclusion standard that means Google explicitly seeks permission before it gets crawled.
now of Phorm were to simply give a user agent to webmasters as they have been asked then this would no longer be an issue.

@ Fletch

Before making nonsensical comments, I would suggest you do a little reading about copyright, and the rights of owners.

Phorms model is fundamentally flawed from the viewpoint of copyright law, and they will be culpable as facilitators to their ISP partners.

Posting a webpage isn’t giving consent for the work to be exploited.

If a band post their lyrics on their webpage, does that mean they are giving up claim to copyright?

If an author makes an excerpt of one of their works available to view on their webpage, are you saying they have no rights to enforce their copyright?

The answer to the above questions are negatives, just so you are aware.

Making a page available to read is not the same as giving up your rights of ownership of the content.

From my viewpoint, all phorm need to do is to make their own user-agent and publicise it, rather than relying on the same one that allows me to have the search engines index my content.

If google are so evil (which seems to be a common idea promoted by phorm and their supporters) why on earth do they want to use their user-agent? Surely it would be a far better idea to have one that is just for phorm, and show the whole world how much better they are, and how they want nothing to do with google.

We already know why phorm won’t create their own user-agent, it’s because their business model would be dead in the water.

Their business model is parasitic in nature and would not be able to survive if they were respectful of copyright and choice.

I allow google and other well behaved crawlers access to promote my work, if phorm had their way, they would use my work to promote lazier webmasters who have to rely on advertising spend to get the visitors they need.

I’m on Google, and they’ve never asked me.

Case closed.

Case closed how? By who?

Who made you the judge, jury and executioner all in one? (To use a favourite phrase of the pro phorm lobby.)

The case is far from closed, in fact it hasn’t even started yet, and it won’t until such time as phorm launch their service. Once they do however, I sure hope they have a large fund put aside for legal costs and licence fees.

I think the only reason you want to declare case closed is because you know that there is no way that phorm can presume consent, and you are not able to give any reasoned argument that defends their mode of operation.

Pointing at the competition and declaring them evil does not make phorm good.

You fell straight into my trap !

You antis closed the case on Phorm long ago. Before they’ve even started their service.

“You antis”

Excuse me?

Have I identified myself as part of an anti-phorm lobby?

No.

I am anti-phorm, to the extent that I think they need to change their business model, or allow proper control to website owners / operators, as well as consumers.

As I said on here yesterday in response to Ahphormation “I would never seek to deter your right to use a legal technology, but if the technology infringes my rights, I will take steps to seek compensation and to prevent further abuse.”

I have not called for the destruction of phorm, or for their outright closure.

If that is the best you can manage to come up with though, the “antis” have already won, because you are effectively admitting that phorm have no valid business model, or at least none that they are willing to make investors and the public aware of, and will be reliant upon parasitic actions to sustain their income.

If they change their methods of data gathering, they can sink or swim like any other company, but while refusing to respect copyright and privacy, they are merely destined to sink.

As I said, the case hasn’t even started yet, so before sliging mud, check your targets.

You’ll find it hard to take the moral highground while standing hip deep in mud though.

You complain at being called an anti, then say you are anti.

Make your mind up.

I have no need to make my mind up, I have clearly stated my position, I am anti-phorm in the sense that they have a flawed business model, not anti-phorm in the sense I think they should be immediately closed down, nor am I part of any lobby against them. You however it would seem, have no position other than attacking people who don’t agree with you or phorm.

You offer no coherent arguments as to why I as a rights owner should be content to allow phorm to make a living from my hard work. Although I know that is impossible, there is no reason that I would ever be happy sustaining a parasite.

You also fail to offer any reason why phorm shouldn’t create their own user-agent to allow website owners choice.

You have done nothing but attack people here, you have nothing to say really do you?

So you’ve decided you are anti, but don’t like the word anti.
What about the word “odd” ?

No, I’ve decided that the pro phorm lobby are nothing but a bunch of worthless trolls, and unless you want to actually have a reasoned debate, you aren’t worth replying to after this post.

You are obviously incapable of answering the questions presented to you, just like the company you are supporting.

If you want to behave in a reasonable manner and have a proper debate, I shall gladly engage in it with you, but if all you are going to do is avoid questions and try to provoke emotional responses, you are not worthy of my time.

How rude….

“How rude ….”

Exactly. I couldn’t agree more.

We used to have manners in this country. Apart from any legal issues, the phorm business model is just plain rude and would have been inconceivable even just 5 years ago.

[…] Childish games or serious problem? 79 comments […]

[…] Childish games or serious problem? 80 comments […]

If any child is addicted to any child games then it creates much harm to the child. Child’s physically as well as mentally activity are going down, so its a childish game which creates serious problem..