the future of tgps and link lists (maybe)

[Greenguy]

You know, this does bring up a question - can you legally charge for access to other peoples sites/galleries?

If I had a program that had hosted galleries & free sites & someone was charging people to look at them, I think I might have to call my lawyer.

[PayAsYouClick]

Of course, that would hold true whether you are charging for access to the whole TGP, or charging for the individual links.

I wouldn't suggest for a moment that you'd charge for individual links without making it part of your own submit terms, so that everyone was happy with it.

But remember that as a sponsor, the traffic coming to you from that kind of link would be from surfers who had been prefiltered. So the bandwidth bill goes down, and the conversions go up.

That sponsor could also charge for extra clips etc on that gallery page, knowing that the surfers that hit the gallery can make payments of up to $2 with one click. Effectively these would be preveiwing the subscription content - exactly what they're doing now for free, but able to charge say 20c per clip.

Remember also that what you are charging for is access to your "directory". The page you're linking to is freely available - you're not selling their content.

As a link list owner you can legally copyright your links. So if you can do that why couldn't you charge surfers to use them.

Danny

[caringneo]

Originally Posted by Greenguy

You know, this does bring up a question - can you legally charge for access to other peoples sites/galleries?

If I had a program that had hosted galleries & free sites & someone was charging people to look at them, I think I might have to call my lawyer.

GG is right.
The submitter provides content, hosting, banwidth, and his time and work expecting traffic from linklist/TGP. Making money out of that for free is not a good idea.
Neo

[spookyx]

One of the problems I see is the Visa thing. They might not like the idea of all the freesites/galleries not being on "your" domain.

[swedguy]

Originally Posted by caringneo

GG is right.
The submitter provides content, hosting, banwidth, and his time and work expecting traffic from linklist/TGP. Making money out of that for free is not a good idea.
Neo

For free?

There's a lot of work behind a LL. The charge would be for reviewing and providing links to the best porn out there and some other goodies. A submitter is never forced to submit to a LL/TGP. They can either submit to LL A and get 5000 mixed hits, or submit to LL B and get less traffic, but pre-approved. I know that I would take both

But the legal issue is interesting. It's the submitter that hosts the content, and he's not charging anything. It's the LL webmaster that only has a link to the free site that is charging. Common sense says that it's all good, since the person that is using the content doesn't charge anything.

[PayAsYouClick]

Originally Posted by caringneo

GG is right.
The submitter provides content, hosting, banwidth, and his time and work expecting traffic from linklist/TGP. Making money out of that for free is not a good idea.
Neo

Absolutely. That's why it is such a good idea. The sponsor gets adult-filtered traffic that's ready to make payments with one click.

Nobody's suggesting the TGPs should make money at the sponsors' expense - whether you charge for the links individually or by getting the surfer to buy a subscription to the TGP. That would be an unsustainable business model, and I think we've had enough of those already!

PayAsYouClick can also be used to (for example) charge the surfer 20c (say) for 24 hours to reach your archive / premium links page, ie a short-duration subscription to a particular part of your TGP.

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by Greenguy

You know, this does bring up a question - can you legally charge for access to other peoples sites/galleries?

If I had a program that had hosted galleries & free sites & someone was charging people to look at them, I think I might have to call my lawyer.

Think you are correct. Most contain a copyright notice. Of course you can contract for anything legal, so the terms and conditions for the LLs/TGPs would have to be rewritten to cover the legalities.

[Robbo]

Then of course as a submitter you`d have to wonder about the benefit of being listed at a ll or tgp as such. Would it be like the internet that once surfers pay for access they believe everything else is or should be free? Therefore not being very productive or finding another place to surf after thier needs are not exactly met. Like prepaying to be presented a sponsor. I know I would hate to pay to be advertised to.

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by Robbo

I know I would hate to pay to be advertised to.

But it might improve your shopping experience and be worth the small 'surfing' fee- guarantee no popups, blind links and BS like that. Sort of like paying a small fee to get rid of a high-powered used car salesman.

[PayAsYouClick]

Originally Posted by Robbo

Then of course as a submitter you`d have to wonder about the benefit of being listed at a ll or tgp as such. Would it be like the internet that once surfers pay for access they believe everything else is or should be free? Therefore not being very productive or finding another place to surf after thier needs are not exactly met. Like prepaying to be presented a sponsor. I know I would hate to pay to be advertised to.

I think its all about perceived value. If you tell the surfer that this site is so good he's going to have to pay you to even be told where it is, it sets an expectation in his mind that the site is something special, or that you've had to work hard on his behalf to find it for him - however you want to sell it.

When we launched everyone said surfers wouldn't pay a cent each to view pictures because they're free everywhere else. That was just plain wrong. We watch surfers all the time click 300 pictures in an evening at 5c each, then come back for more the next day.

The same COULD be true for links if they're marketed right, and you guys sure have got the traffic to make that pay if you get it right.

But I don't pretend to know for sure what the best way of doing that is. We're just providing the tools for you to do it whatever way you can make it work.

Danny

[SEO_Konsul]

Originally Posted by Greenguy

You know, this does bring up a question - can you legally charge for access to other peoples sites/galleries?

If I had a program that had hosted galleries & free sites & someone was charging people to look at them, I think I might have to call my lawyer.

think this should be possible. remember, you offer a service and why should you not be allowed to charge a fee for it. actually I would love to get my freesites (if I had some) listed on your linklist thugh you charge a fee for you visitors

[GeorgeTH]

Originally Posted by Greenguy

You know, this does bring up a question - can you legally charge for access to other peoples sites/galleries?

If I had a program that had hosted galleries & free sites & someone was charging people to look at them, I think I might have to call my lawyer.

First: I still doubt if surfers would be paying to view a sponsor gallery (coming back to my initial reply!), but they would for some rather exclusive content in nice large images/movies.

Don't forget: there are still a few old-fashioned webmasters left who are actually buying content to make into TGP/LL galleries! And who says that then the gallery should be still limited to 16 or 20 pictures, 4 or 6 movies... A submitter could make a little larger teaser particularly for this system - I certainly wouldn't mind the traffic as long as it is not double charged (meaning; me as a submitter and the surfer to see it - you can milk a cow only so long). Should probably be better quality traffic.

I would think from the legal point of view the TGP/LL is rather charging for their service, not the content as such... And otherwise the TGP/LL owner could maybe pay a percentage TO the submitter as a sub-license fee! Now that would be a lovely new concept: get finally paid for submitting! I always thought that would be only fair!!!
(It certainly wasn't such a minefield when I used a micro-payment with my own galleries - since the content was licensed to me.)

[KCat]

Originally Posted by Greenguy

You know, this does bring up a question - can you legally charge for access to other peoples sites/galleries?

If I had a program that had hosted galleries & free sites & someone was charging people to look at them, I think I might have to call my lawyer.

This idea was brought up on GFY a few months ago & the guy got crucified for this very reason. A lot of exclusive content producers were not too happy with his idea to use their content in his own quasi-paysite.

Personally, I'd submit anywhere with pre-qualified traffic like that.

[Verbal]

So is anyone gonna test this out? The pre-qualified traffic would definately be a marketers wet dream.

It'd also be smart to get the sponsors onboard instead of hoping they're OK with it. Come up with some additional incentives for them, like feature their different paysites everywhere inside for a week/month, etc.