PPRUNE change of Privacy Policy

[neville_nobody]

Just notice a change of privacy policy from Internet Brands. Suggest you all check it out.

This is the stuff that could get you in strife...

We may share personal information about you with third parties in the following circumstances:

We may engage third parties to perform services on our behalf, including maintenance services, analytics and data analysis, payment processing, assisting in marketing efforts, email and text message distribution, customer service and conducting surveys.
Your personal information, and the contents of all of your online communications on or through our sites and services may be accessed and monitored as necessary to operate our sites and perform our services, and may be disclosed:
to satisfy any applicable laws or regulations,
to defend ourselves in litigation or a regulatory action,
in order to protect the rights or property of Internet Brands and our subsidiaries, including to enforce our sites' terms of use,
when we have a good faith belief that we are required to disclose the information in response to legal process (for example, a subpoena, court order, or search warrant),
where we believe our sites and services are being used in the commission of a crime, including to report such criminal activity or to exchange information with other companies and organizations for the purposes of fraud protection and risk management, and
when we have a good faith belief that there is an emergency that poses a threat to the health and/or safety of you, another person or the public generally.

In the event of a merger, acquisition, debt financing, sale of Internet Brands' assets by or with another company, or a similar corporate transaction takes place, we may need to disclose and transfer all information about you, including personal information, to the successor company.
We may share information about you with Internet Brands' subsidiaries and affiliates.
Some of our services are co-branded by Internet Brands and other companies with which we partner. If you register to or use such a service, both our privacy policy and the partner's privacy policy may be displayed and apply. If that is the case, both Internet Brands and the partner will receive personal information you provide.
We may share personal information about you for any other purpose(s) disclosed to you at the time we collect your information or with your consent.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I think we should all come clean now. I'll start. My name is Steve.

[V-Jet]

Here is the Link:
BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18404621)

UK only - so far:)

[600ft-lb]

In other words, don't post anything that could be considered defamation against someone. The internet is not anonymous

[Plazbot]

Dahite.........

[teresa green]

I take back everything I have said about Joyce and Clifford. lovely chaps.:{

[gordonfvckingramsay]

If you speak the truth, however ugly, it is not libel or slander as I see it under Australian law. :ok:


Uniform legislation was passed in Australiain 2005 severely restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation(see, e.g., Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 9). The only corporationsexcluded from the general ban are those not for profit or those with less than 10 employees and notaffiliated with another company. Corporations may, however, still sue for thetort of injurious falsehood, where the burden of proof is greater than for meredefamation, because the plaintiff must show that the defamation was made withmalice and resulted in economic loss.

The 2005 reforms also established across allAustralian states the availability of truth as an unqualified defense;previously a number of states only allowed a defense of truth with thecondition that a public benefit existed.

Since the introduction ofthe uniform defamation laws in 2005 the distinction between slander and libelhas been abolished.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

....especially if it just an unqualified opinion.

[Kelly Slater]

Is this change retrospective or does it only apply to future posts? Surely previous posts are governed by previous rules, not that I have ever said anything libelous.

[Tableview]

If you speak the truth, however ugly, it is not libel or slander
The definition of 'truth' is very elastic, and therein lies the problem.

FACTS / TRUTH
Airline 'X' operate 18 aircraft, average age 14 years, the oldest is 21 years.

QUESTIONABLY LIBELLOUS :
Airline 'X' operate 18 aircraft, some are very old.

[C441]

To paraphrase someone more astute than I:
"The Law is not about the truth, it's about the Law."

[tail wheel]

If you speak the truth, however ugly, it is not libel or slander as I see it under Australian law.

Australian law is not the issue. It is THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation) legislation that is the problem.

SLAPP Subpoenas were arriving thick and fast there for awhile! :{

Surely previous posts are governed by previous rules, not that I have ever said anything libelous.

If it is still visible on this site, even though posted perhaps a decade ago, it is still relevant. One of the Subpoenas received by IB related in part to posts around 8 to 10 years ago.

I didn't know IB had changed the rules. I'll go over to the Mod House and find out what is going on.

[Fliegenmong]

Oh dear......I've posted a lot of 'pissed rubbish' do I now require a Stat Dec to affirm my 'pissed rubbish'....or will common sense prevail?? I guess common sense will not be allowed to flourish, regardless of government

[teresa green]

Ah, nothing like waking up and smelling the roses eh. I just looooove living in a socialist country, where we are manipulated, freedom of speech slowly taken away, seems like nobody can cop a spray anymore, taking it on the chin, they have to run to the lawyers. Political correctness is getting worse, and you wonder what on earth you are leaving your kids and grand kids. Not much by the sound of it.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Exactly Teresa.

Intimidation and communist style censorship more legal than having an opinion? I am officially scared! :(

(No offense to communism, a fine system where you can live in peaceful freedom and equality)

[Worrals in the wilds]

I think we should all come clean now. I'll start. My name is Steve. Smart arse. :ok::DHave you got any other names though? ;)
One of the Subpoenas received by IB related in part to posts around 8 to 10 years ago.What sort of a ...(won't be libellous :suspect:) person cares about stuff written on a bulletin board 8 to 10 years ago? :ugh: And what sort of damages were they claiming?
Anyway, in my opinion Qantas still suck. :p Anyone want to share a jail cell? :eek:

Seriously, newer members may not be aware that several years ago there was successful legal action taken by one Australian PPRuNe member against another in relation to comments made on this board.

[Groaner]

....especially if it just an unqualified opinion.

Umm, you can get in trouble with this. If you say "X is a paedophile" (or, say, "Airline Y is unsafe"), and then later (in court...) claim it was just your unqualified opinion, I suspect you'll be sweating somewhat.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Groaner, I agree but, stating what appears to be a fact and then claiming it was only an oppinion after the fact is not quite what I meant.

If I was to state "I didn't like that flight with X airlines, it didn"t feel safe to me" or "I thought Y airlines aircraft looked a bit old and ratty" surely you couldn't be crucified for that.

...and what if X actually is a convicted paedophile? Is stating a fact illegal? That would be a worry indeed as are these SLAPP things :uhoh:

[Pinky the pilot]

Anyone want to share a jail cell?

Only if it was with you Worrals!:D Depends on whether we could bring in a few bottles of good Red with us though.:E

[tail wheel]

What sort of a ...(won't be libellous) person cares about stuff written on a bulletin board 8 to 10 years ago?

Those that don't like the truth? :E

And what sort of damages were they claiming?

Unspecified....... Damages is not the intent of a SLAPP Subpoena. Censorship is the intent!

"A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition."

[airsupport]

IF this is true then perhaps you should change the name of the site, Rumours can get you into serious trouble. :ooh:

Maybe call it PFC............... :ok:

No, that does not stand for what you think ;) it is Pilots Factual Comments. :ok:

[Worrals in the wilds]

Only if it was with you Worrals!:D Depends on whether we could bring in a few bottles of good Red with us though.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gifI think we'd be limited to whatever can be distilled from kitchen supplies; carrot 'vodka', no ice? :\
Those that don't like the truth? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif Figures. It's like reviews; good restaurants/entertainment companies don't care about bad reviews because they're confident in their product and at least it's publicity. Lousy companies try to harass and intimidate the paper that published them.
If they spent all that time working on their product they wouldn't need to freak out about occasional bad reviews.

Smoke, fire, etc.

Can a SLAPP subpoena be served in Australia, if an Australian business/individual felt they'd been wronged? The wiki site makes no reference either way.

[teresa green]

So what can we expect? Staff meetings in toilets with a guard outside, phones tapped, strange men in dark raincoats in lurking around the hangers, staff passing notes in pie bags, CC having meetings in the Lower lobe, Techies leaving notes in each others nav bags, (to be destroyed upon reading) messages left behind pictures in hotel rooms when up the track (we use to leave playboy and other intellectual readings) QF and JQ staff the possibilities are endless, you have entered a new dimension, you are not aloud to voice your opinion, Joyce is no longer to be referred to as a :mad: but a gentleman with a difficult personality. Ok lets all move on. Tailwind we shall do as you say, as the KGB is now sniffing around.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Staff meetings in toilets with a guard outside,Wouldn't it be better to be in the middle of a random shopping centre food court with lots of ambient noise? Toilets are easy to bug. :suspect:
Kebab, anyone? I know a great place, which I'll tell you in person, not on frigging Facebook. :E:}
Remember to keep the kebab in front of your mouth when you talk. Whenever you speak keep a mouthful of kebab on the go as well. :E

[tail wheel]

Can a SLAPP subpoena be served in Australia, if an Australian business/individual felt they'd been wronged?

In respect to PPRuNe there would be no point. The Subpoena is to obtain user details from IB who are based in California.

Having obtained a user's IP address and email address, an aggreived person would then need to make a new, separate application in an Australian Court for an order for the ISP (Telstra etc) to release the users name and address.

It is not a quick, simple or cheap process of discovery which can be slowed or even frustrated by "annonymous" type email addresses and a dynamic IP address. Email adresses that contain a users actual name (@) Bigpond or similar ISP make it easy to idntify the user.

All IB/PPRuNe has on record for users is the details you submitted in your profile, your posts, and the IP address of the computer terminal from which the post(s) were made.

Mods are often abused for deleting posts and threads, however the vast majority of deleted posts and threads is solely to protect the user from any possibility of legal action.

Regardless of any changes in IB privacy policies, I will always do everything I can to protect the identity, annonymity and privacy of our users.

[Worrals in the wilds]

It is not a simple or cheap process of discovery which can be slowed or even frustrated by "annonymous" type email addresses and a dynamic IP address. Email adresses that contain a users actual name (@) Bigpond or similar ISP make it easy to identify the user.Interesting point, thanks. The Princess needs a new name...:8

Regardless of any changes in IB privacy policies, I will always do everything I can to protect the identity, annonymity and privacy of our users. Thanks. :ok: At the end of the day, it's a risk any publisher takes, and anyone who posts to PPRuNe (or any other internet forum) is a publisher.
Caveat Emptor.

[psycho joe]

Saw it all coming. Been working on an insanity plea for years. :E

[ShyTorque]

I think we should all come clean now. I'll start. My name is Steve.

I agree. My name's not Steve.

[teresa green]

Tailwind, Canada has just repealed this nonsense, taking away the freedom of speech, one can only hope Australia and the US, UK etc follow soon. It is one thing to call your CEO a :mad::mad::mad: idiot, regardless of who he or she is, but it is hardly libelous, after most of the rest of the company probably agree with them, the only time it should become a issue is if the private life of the individual is delved into, like our current PM who keeps a hate file business going in her office, then a blogger should be warned about going too far.

[Plazbot]

Ever since Dick Smith went Lawyers at 20 paces with that chick from CASA, it was obvious no one should say anything even remotely dubious on this forum. A sfor moderation, since Woomeri went to individual accounts, GD etc has gone to the shot. Personal bias reigns supreme.

[airsupport]

Tail wheel,

I am just so sick of all this rubbish from the US, supposed to be the Land of the Free, Defenders of everyones Rights, but they are NOT.

Under these circumstances, although I have never done anything wrong, I think I will stop using PPRuNe and any other site that has these disgusting policies, however it is obviously not enough just to leave so would you PLEASE advise how one can completely remove their indentities and all personal information from PPRuNe?

Thank you..................

[Anthill]

The solution is simple: don't say anything that could injure a person's reputation unless you can prove it in court.

Our "rights" and freedoms don't, and shouldn't, extend to being allowed to spread BS stories about people.

[airsupport]

The solution is simple: don't say anything that could injure a person's reputation unless you can prove it in court.

Our "rights" and freedoms don't, and shouldn't, extend to being allowed to spread BS stories about people.

Sure the solution is simple, and I would not do that anyway, however it is the ridiculous idea that they can go back years and years when this policy was NOT in place, I have NO problem with the new rules from NOW but you cannot do it retrospectively.

The speed limit in our street has been lowered recently from 60KPH to 50KPH, an excellent idea for safety and I am 100% in favour of it AND it being enforced, however IF the Police were to go back to ten years ago when I was doing 60KPH in our street and fine me I would NOT be pleased, the new rules can NOT be retrospective.

[Anthill]

Yes AS and I agree. I would have thought that the Statute of Limitations would apply :confused:

[tail wheel]

Anthill. Except you can open a 2002 PPRuNe thread today and re-publish any libelous comments made a decade ago.

A SLAPP Subpoena does not require any proof of libel, defamation etc.

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

Let us ensure Australia is never burdened with similar ludicrous legislation.

[airsupport]

Careful Tail Wheel, or you may get slapped with a SLAPP. ;)

You did not answer my query, is it possible to delete all reference to oneself from PPRuNe? :confused:

Just I did NOT agree to these ridiculous Yankee rules and I signed on in good faith using my real email address etc. :{

[teresa green]

Has any Pruner been hit with a Libel charge and if so what? No names or details are necessary but just a general idea. As I said before if you criticize your company because you think it is justified, it is your right to do so, but if you criticise the CEO of your company attack them personally, and delve into their private lives then you could just get a knock on the door. Let us not get to the stage as the present govt wants, by forcing the media to stop reporting any material they consider harmful to them. We live in a democracy, (or supposed to) that entails freedom of speech, that is nbr one in a democracy, in blogs like this, moderators are there, as in all blogs, to weed out stuff that is inflammatory, liable, or down right raving and abusive. I assume the moderators on this site are either pilots or engineers, I have no idea if they get paid, but I cannot imagine anybody doing it for nothing, especially if they work, have family and commitments. It worries me some people appear fearful, don't be, if you shot your mouth off once to often then you would have heard by now, just keep it clean, no personal attack, if your outraged it is your right to say so, you do still live in a democracy even if it is teetering a little bit. It would be a dreadful thing if all of us decided to not ever make a statement again for fear of retaliation be it this blog or the media blogs. That is what they are after, do not let them have it.

[airsupport]

Yes, everything you are saying is correct, and I for one am happy to agree to these new terms and abide by them from now on, but I still do NOT see how on Earth this can apply to posts made under the old rules before today (this week, whatever), some a decade ago under different rules in a different time. :ugh:

[teresa green]

They would probably not stand up in court Air Supply. Your Lawyer would argue you had not been notified of such possibilites, and it would be probably thrown out.

[airsupport]

Thank you for trying to protect me by changing my username, but I do not think that will help. ;)

I had never heard of this rubbish before in Australia, maybe I need to get out more, apparently it has been around for some time. :(

-----------------------------------------------------

SLAPP's in Australia

From SourceWatch

The phenomenon of lawsuits known as SLAPP's (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) which threaten the community's rights and ability to participate in public debate and political protest appears to be alive and well in Australia and in New Zealand.

The biggest example of a large corporation suing its opponents is Tasmanian timber giant Gunns Ltd suing twenty environmentalists in the Supreme Court in Victoria.[1] However, before the Gunns 20 case, there were a range of cases over the Hindmarsh Island bridge in South Australia [2] and over development on Hinchinbrook Island in Queensland, and a history of litigation documented initially by Sydney lawyer Bruce Donald.[3]

Some within industry circles have urged companies to sue critics as part of winning a debate. A column published in the Australian Journal of Mining in August 1988 advised readers that "anti-mining opponents generally make outrageous and defamatory claims. A crowd stopper in a debate is the threat of legal action. For example: you know that statement is false. If you repeat that statement I will place the matter in my hands of my solicitors Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Run.' Don't bluff about legal matters. Be prepared to litigate."

Law reform

On April 3, 2006 The Wilderness Society, one of the defendants in the Gunns20 case, launched a major report Gunning for Change documenting a range of Australian law suits against public participation and calling for law reform to establish and protect the right to to public participation.[4]

At the same time as The Wilderness Society report was launched, nearly 150 Australian lawyers signed up to a Public Interest Lawyers' Statement in Support of Public Participation Law Reform. A group of 40 British lawyers have also issued a statement condemning the Gunns case and calling for law reform.[5]

The Parliament of the ACT instituted hearings into a draft bill proposed by the Greens[6]. In 2008, the ACT Legislative Assembly passed Australia's first anti-SLAPP legislation,[7]. However, the Act was criticised as being weak and fatally flawed.

[tail wheel]

You did not answer my query, is it possible to delete all reference to oneself from PPRuNe?

Yes. Send me a PM or email confirming your requirement.

Has any Pruner been hit with a Libel charge and if so what? No names or details are necessary but just a general idea.

Only one serious matter I recall in Dunnunda Forum. Also been quite a few threats and lawyers letters. Been a couple of rather serious issues in other forums which may have affected people's careers. Can't go into details.

[teresa green]

Sorry Air Support, just think if you were Air Supply..............................??!! you would not have to push buckets of bolst around the sky!

[teresa green]

Eh, put the mistake on spelling bolts to a little cheeky red!

[Tableview]

I really get to expand my circle of friends!
That's a classic! :ok: Not sure if you meant it that way though.

[Pinky the pilot]

carrot 'vodka', no ice?

I'll pass on that I think. Would need a bucket full of ice to persuade me to drink that!!:yuk:

a little cheeky red!

A person of taste, I see Teresa.:ok:

Re the SLAPP issue; Why does the saying 'Come the revolution, first shoot all the Lawyers' spring to mind?:ooh::hmm:

[Worrals in the wilds]

Yes, everything you are saying is correct, and I for one am happy to agree to these new terms and abide by them from now on, but I still do NOT see how on Earth this can apply to posts made under the old rules before today (this week, whatever), some a decade ago under different rules in a different time.
(H)air spray (sorry, just helping with ideas for your new username ;):}) my understanding is that it's because they're still 'in print', for want of a better term. If you deleted them (and no-one had copied and reposted them) it would be different. if they're still visible on the net, they can still be read and are therefore still allegedly defamatory. It doesn't matter when you wrote them.

Wrt your speeding analogy, you're not doing 60km in the present time, so the action doesn't exist. However, unless you delete it, your post does exist in the present time.

I didn't think the actual rules of defamation had changed, it is just easier to sue. Is that right? :confused:

Out of interest, does a statute of limitations apply to defamation actions stemming from published books? From memory it doesn't, though IIRC you can't defame the dead.

[tail wheel]

SLAPP legislation is not the issue. Whilst I may consider it anti democratic and anti free speech, it is the law in the US.

It is this I object to:

"We may share personal information about you with third parties in the following circumstances:

We may engage third parties to perform services on our behalf, including maintenance services, analytics and data analysis, payment processing, assisting in marketing efforts, email and text message distribution, customer service and conducting surveys.

Your personal information, and the contents of all of your online communications on or through our sites and services may be accessed and monitored as necessary to operate our sites and perform our services, and may be disclosed:"

IB giving itself the right to: "....engage third parties to perform services on our behalf, including ....... email and text message distribution, customer service and conducting surveys."

The right to use, sell, trade or give my personal information for the purposes of SPAM email and text messages.

[airsupport]

(H)air spray (sorry, just helping with ideas for your new username ) my understanding is that it's because they're still 'in print', for want of a better term. If you deleted them (and no-one had copied and reposted them) it would be different. if they're still visible on the net, they can still be read and are therefore still allegedly defamatory. It doesn't matter when you wrote them.

Wrt your speeding analogy, you're not doing 60km in the present time, so the action doesn't exist. However, unless you delete it, your post does exist in the present time.

Thank you for your help but I really do NOT think I need any more usernames, I have more than enough already. ;)

What I meant, maybe I did not explain it very well, was IF the Police still have a photo of me (my car) doing 60KPH in my street taken 10 years ago but the photo still exists to me this is the same as a post on PPRuNe from 10 years ago under different agreed terms and conditions. :ok:

[airsupport]

SLAPP legislation is not the issue. Whilst I may consider it anti democratic and anti free speech, it is the law in the US.

It is this I object to:


Quote:
"We may share personal information about you with third parties in the following circumstances:

We may engage third parties to perform services on our behalf, including maintenance services, analytics and data analysis, payment processing, assisting in marketing efforts, email and text message distribution, customer service and conducting surveys.

Your personal information, and the contents of all of your online communications on or through our sites and services may be accessed and monitored as necessary to operate our sites and perform our services, and may be disclosed:"

IB giving itself the right to: "....engage third parties to perform services on our behalf, including ....... email and text message distribution, customer service and conducting surveys."

The right to use, sell, trade or give my personal information for the purposes of SPAM email and text messages.
__________________


Okay, that explains something, I do not normally get much spam email at all in my main email account, the one I am registered with on PPRuNe for ''airsupport'' however I am now getting quite a lot. :mad::mad::mad:

[DutchRoll]

I just looooove living in a socialist country, where we are manipulated, freedom of speech slowly taken away, seems like nobody can cop a spray anymore...

Nothing to do with socialism.

The UK has a conservative government which is about to introduce the most draconian eavesdropping and surveillance legislation a western country has ever seen. It will allow the UK Government to monitor real-time internet communication (eg chat sessions, etc) between anyone, all without a court order or warrant! This includes compelling your ISP to provide details on who you're talking to, how frequently, and for how long.

Bush introduced the "USA Patriot Act", named so that no-one would dare vote against it, authorising unprecedented surveillance and monitoring of the general public, under the auspices of national security.

Both sides of politics, conservative and liberal, do it. And they seem to be in a competition as to who can do it the most.

[airsupport]

Although not quite the same thing, and nothing to do with Aviation (apologies in advance Tail Wheel) ;) at least the High Court of Australia does NOT just give in to the Americans no matter what, for a long time now several major American Companies have been trying to prosecute one of our Aussie ISPs because they refuse to block their Customers access to sites the Americans say they should.

In a major victory for commonsense in Australia recently, our High Court has voted against the anti piracy people in favour of one of our ISPs. They ruled that even IF it is illegal to download TV shows and Movies, it is NOT up to the ISP to Police it, and the ISPs can NOT be forced to stop their Customers doing it, not that I would ever do it of course. ;)


Internet service provider iiNet has won a major legal battle over whether it should be held responsible for its customers downloading content illegally.

An appeal by the world's largest film and television companies against iiNet was dismissed today by the High Court.

A group of 34 international and Australian companies, including Warner Bros, Disney and the Seven Network, had alleged that iiNet had authorised the infringement of their copyright when its customers downloaded movies and television programs.

The movie companies had argued that iiNet had the power to prevent its customers from infringing copyright by issuing warnings and suspending or terminating customer accounts.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) appealed to the High Court after losing its first appeal to the federal court last year.

But today the High Court found that iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the BitTorrent file sharing system to infringe copyright.

"Rather, the extent of iiNet's power to prevent its customers from infringing ... copyright was limited to an indirect power to terminate its contractual relationship with its customers," the court said.

iiNet Chief Executive Officer, Michael Malone, said the judgment supported the company’s position and proved the claims made against it were unfounded.

"Today’s High Court five-nil ruling confirms that iiNet is not liable for ‘authorising’ the conduct of its customers who engaged in online copyright infringement.

"This marks the end of more than three years of legal argument and challenges."

Mr Malone said increasing the availability of lawful, online content in a more timely, affordable and reasonably priced manner, brought the focus back to customers and was the best method to protect content owners’ copyright.

He said there was strong evidence that content partnerships and agreements between ISPs, legal websites and copyright holders had done more to reduce piracy and to showcase copyright holders’ materials than this unproductive legal battle.

The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs. Legal costs of the case to date are approximately $9 million and have already been expensed.



Thank goodness for the Australian Legal System.............. :ok:

[teresa green]

Perhaps Dutch Roll, but it was the Greens Brown, and Labors Gillard, that set the ball rolling in this country, and doing their best to rein in the Murdoch media, not the ABC, or the Fairfax press, both notoriously left wing Labor supporters.

[mcgrath50]

Cause John Howard's government was all about freedom...

[airsupport]

I had never heard of this Internet Brands before, so just did a bit of searching, this is what I found, and I post this with NO personal comment because I do NOT want to be SLAPPed. ;)

(QUOTE)

The company operates two divisions: consumer internet and licensing.

The consumer internet division owns and operates more than 95 websites in seven categories. The company attracts more than 62 million unique visitors per month, with 97% of the audience originating from organic, non-paid sources.[1] [2] The company's strategy is to focus on specific target audiences which tend to be attractive to advertisers.[3] [4][5]

On December 1, 2010, Internet Brands acquired AllLaw.com and AttorneyLocate.com, both originally founded by Arvind A. Raichur.[6]

SEC filings indicate that approximately 70% of the company's revenues are derived from advertising from more than 40,000 accounts—most of them small and medium enterprises.

The company's portfolio of websites include many with social media features: social network services, user generated content, blogs, wikis, and internet forums,[7][8] with over half a million registered users across forums.

Owned websites: Apartment Ratings, CarsDirect, CorvetteForum, Craftster, DoItYourself.com, DVD Talk‎, EPodunk, FitDay, FlyerTalk, Model Mayhem, Professional Pilots Rumour Network,‎ WAHM (magazine), Wikitravel.

The company was founded in 1998 as CarsDirect.com, launched from the business incubator Idealab. The company invented a consumer-advocacy approach to selling cars "haggle-free" online, an approach it continues to employ.[9] In 2000, Roger Penske invested in the company and joined the Board of Directors. In 2002, Time Magazine voted the site one of the 50 best in the World.[10]

The company changed its name to Internet Brands in 2005.[11] The company's IPO was in November 2007 on the NASDAQ exchange.[12] INET was added to the NASDAQ Internet Index on March 22, 2010. [13]

Internet Brands is headquartered in El Segundo, California; Autodata is headquartered in London, Ontario.

Internet Brands agreed to be acquired for $640 mln by the private equity firm Hellman & Friedman in September 2010.[14] [15]

In October 2009 Internet Brands changed the pricing structure for its vBulletin software, prompting complaints from registered users on the official forums. According to The Register those who complained were then banned from both the forums and from receiving support & updates, despite still having valid licences for the product.[16] Internet Brands defended their position to The Register in a separate article; however a later update to the same article stated that at least some of Internet Brands' claims were false.[17]

In October 2010, Internet Brands announced that it would file a lawsuit against the XenForo team claiming copyright infringement; specifically that code in XenForo was based on vBulletin code, breach of contract, and engaging in unfair business practices.[18]

In November 2010, Internet Brands sued Kier Darby, a lead developer of XenForo, who had previously served as a lead developer for Internet Brands' vBulletin, claiming that Kier had not returned confidential information from Internet Brands regarding the vBulletin software.

The XenForo team has denied the claims.[19]

(ENDQUOTE)

[mister hilter]

airsupport,

that was a major victory and as you said 'thank goodness for the Austalian legal system'.

From memory, the company, iinet, was the chosen target for this litigation when it could have been any one (eg telstra, optus etc) because it was a small and relative newcomer to the market. The rationale being that they (iinet) would not have the stomach, nor the resources, for the legal stoush. This would then have let some of the biggest companies known (Disney, Time Warner) throw their weight around by gaining an easy victory and a 'back door' legal route into the Australian market.

[airsupport]

airsupport,

that was a major victory and as you said 'thank goodness for the Austalian legal system'.

From memory, the company, iinet, was the chosen target for this litigation when it could have been any one (eg telstra, optus etc) because it was a small and relative newcomer to the market. The rationale being that they (iinet) would not have the stomach, nor the resources, for the legal stoush. This would then have let some of the biggest companies known (Disney, Time Warner) throw their weight around by gaining an easy victory and a 'back door' legal route into the Australian market.

Yes it was a major victory, like all bullies they picked on who they thought was the weakest first, thankfully the bullies lost. :ok:

[UPPERLOBE]

teresa, please tell us why Gina Reinhart is intent on controlling the SMH?

I prefer to think that all of our politicians & mining magnates are having the loan of the rest of us and I can put up a contra argument to anything political you might like to post, so to me it's redundant and boring to start discussing politics in a non aviation related sense.

I can agree with you on most of the other more important things you have to say here.

No hard feelings and in the words of Pat Condell... PEACE.

[teresa green]

Mcgrath, I have no recollection of Howard ever making the announcement that Brown and Gillard did. Upperlobe, I have no idea why Gina Reinhart wants to have a major interest in the Fairfax press, but I guess she sees a dollar in it. The whole thing is tied up, this stifling of speech. I don't care if its PPrune or the Fairfax press or whoever. We are entering a dangerous space, if a person cannot make a statement of complaint against another person or company without being in fear of some sort of legal action or retribution. To live like that, try China or North Korea, indeed some parts of Russia still. The Australian Media right now is fighting the taking away of the freedom of speech, that has been imposed on us by Brown and Gillard after the British Tabloid was found tapping phones. The only tapping here was done by the Melbourne Age, one of the very papers that support Labor. Both Gillard and Brown saw the Murdoch press to be harming them, it never occurred to them that the electorate, are simply not happy or satisfied with their minority govt. as the polls so eloquently show, and silencing the media is a pointless exercise, and only infuriates the electorate even further. Unless you attack the family, the private life, or accuse any airline staff member of being incompetent, that could cause them to lose their jobs, add to that peoples sexual preferences on this blog, you should have no fear. you live in a democracy, you should be able to exercise your right to free speech, and if you cannot, then we are heading down a path, that leaves little no future for your children or grand children.

[ejectx3]

Pat condell for pm

[DutchRoll]

Teresa, the Howard government not only had a widely-renowned obstructionist attitude to FOI laws, but around 2007 demonstrated that it was quite happy to sacrifice freedom of speech and expression using its new security and sedition laws.

And if you don't know why Gina Rinehart is buying up Fairfax shares and demanding a seat on the Board, you haven't been reading The Australian recently (which I'd find very hard to believe).

My point? We all know you have a very meek and mild, almost imperceptible right wing political orientation, but it is clearly not always the "Left" who are attacking free speech or who have attacked it in the past.

[lame]

You say they can go back as much as a decade. :ooh:

I have not posted for years but maybe I will have to watch out, not that I ever posted anything controversial. :E

[tail wheel]

You can opt out of IB's policy and any risk of being spamed by completing their form HERE (http://www.internetbrands.com/privacy/privacy-contact-form.php).

I don't know why they require First and Last Name as that information was not required when originally registering with PPRuNe. I suspect IB will get a number of forms from Donald Duck, James Bond etc. :}

[neville_nobody]

We may engage third parties to perform services on our behalf, including maintenance services, analytics and data analysis, payment processing, assisting in marketing efforts, email and text message distribution, customer service and conducting surveys.

And where are these third parties domiciled is always a good question to ask.

[airsupport]

Tail Wheel,

I am confused, yes I am getting old so no big surprise, but IF someone is worried about IB's new privacy policy, being spammed and/or this horrid SLAPP business why on Earth would you give them your real name??? :confused::rolleyes::ugh:

[tail wheel]

Perhaps I was making a subtle suggestion? :E

airsupport. I don't think you have anything to worry about. Any process to identify and prosecute a PPRuNe user would require an aggreived party to serve a SLAPP Subpoena on IB in California. That would result in your profile details (including registration email address) and your posting IP addresses being released.

Presuming your registration email address did not lead directly to you, the aggreived party would then need to commence an action in an Australian Court requiring your ISP to reveal the name and address of the users of those IP addresses.

A long winded and expensive exercise..........

IF you fill in your name as Donald Duck or James Bond they still want your email address.

Yes, they need the email address you already have in your PPRuNe profile in order to identify who is opting out........ :ugh:

[Worrals in the wilds]

Interesting article re internet privacy/anonymity. :eek::8
Arvind Narayanan Isn't Anonymous, and Neither Are You | Threat Level | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/wmw-arvind-narayanan/)

[teresa green]

Dutchroll, right now the Labor and Greens are screaming blue murder about Reinhart taking a major seat on Fairfax press. Yes the lady has conservative leanings, but I somehow believe that had she had left leanings, the concern would be little, in fact embraced by the said Greens and Labor, your mob are no saints, Slipper, Thomson, they have the morals of a alley cat. My mob are probably little better, the difference being your mob are in govt. And the polls favour my mob not yours, in fact they are bumping along the bottom, and your PM shooting her mouth off yesterday making a total goose of herself does not help. Carbon tax, Australia Day fiasco, leadership challenges, lies, spin, on and on it goes. I admire your dedication, but your backing a horse on three legs. Not good odds. Thank God I can still blog this without fear, but with your mobs idea of controlling the press it won't be for much longer.

[teresa green]

For all those concerned of legal implications, cast your mind back to 89. The blogs on that were a Lawyers dream, accusations, death threats, suicides, physical assault, that fight went on for years into the nineties, pilots refusing to fly with S$^BS fisti cups at a social gathering in BNE (I was there) you name it, it was said. To my knowledge no legal action. Then there was QF's little "incident" BKK, once more the armchair critics came out, accusations etc and once more to my knowledge no legal action. Followed by the gas bottle incident and the A380 which only brought admiration for both crews. Its personal things that cause trouble not calling the CP a :mad: goose, that should only cause tea and bickies. (I should know!) And as long as you have called no one a Po^%t$r, insulted their families, mentioned their childrens names, or indeed their address, deleved into their private lives, given info that might endanger that person or their family, calling them a goose is quite acceptable, (for now).

[zanthrus]

Who cares what IB think?

I will say what I like here and they can come and get me, if they can.

:mad: