quote:
Originally posted by RaceProUK
No, Patchou doesn't disclose that info; however, the sponsor program's EULA does, and if you select 'Install the sponsor', the EULA for it is the very next screen.
Also, Patchou has struck a deal whereby the sponsor program is much lighter and far less intrusive than Lop's normal software.
Like this?
![[Image: bensonandhedgesxd7.gif]](http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/6122/bensonandhedgesxd7.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by absorbation
I also feel strongly about adware. I don't think anti-virus companies portray it right. A lot just simple detect it as a trojan, when it is not.
It
is a trojan, depending on your definition of the word. Trojans do not have to be harmful - they just have to be a program that pretends its something else.
quote:
C2LOP is not the best adware company. But the software Patchou uses is heavily stripped.
No it's not.
quote:
I guess you have to take the bad with the good. I agree with you on some levels, because the sponsor is giving the program a bad name.
Imagine if I wrote a book, and I got sponsorship from
Marlboro - and with every book purchased all my customers could have an optional pack of cigarettes with it - but it's their choice. Would I get angry letters from community groups, health organizations and doctors? You bet I would. Would it matter if they were "Extra Mild"? Heck no.
Advanced PC users, system professionals - computer technicians and anti-malware groups are writing angry letters all over the internet - and I know that many have written to Patchou's email personally as well. Some probably sent snail-mail as well.
Your declaration that his sponsor is somehow "light" is misleading. The start page has been dropped, and so the toolbar and the pass through bar was removed... but that doesn't change the fact that it adds its sites to your pop-up blocker's safe list automatically - or that it goes through your windows HOSTS file and ensures there's access to its sites through there. All the *content* is still there, and is still displayed. The worst parts of it have not been removed.
And what about the long-standing complaints against C2Media/Circle Development owned sites:
code:
negativebeats.com
positivebeats.com
x******.com
And many more? Yes, the last site contains advertisements for x-rated material. I don't suggest visiting any of the three - I'd just thought I'd remind you of which sites Patchou's fantastic sponsor owns.
quote:
I'm sure Patchou would get rid of it if he could find a better way to make money from his program 
That is called conjecture - it is a point of view which is not necessarily based on reality.
quote:
People don't seem to give him many offers, I'm sure if he done his research he could make more money without annoying users as much. Maybe he can make a deal with Microsoft in some way, they tend to bundle a lot of things in their installations
...
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
The only difference would be that the setup of Plus! which does include the sponsor, can be falsly reconized by some anti-spyware tools as malicious.
"Falsely"? Many people consider lop.com malware* - and at any rate it actively promotes and advertises malware and spyware and is a computer hijacker (it runs even when Plus! isn't running - and deliberately overrides user's computer settings).
*From Wikipedia:
Malware is software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system without the owner's informed consent.
quote:
If there are "many other options", Patchou would already have choosen them since a long long time.
Conjecture.
quote:
The truth is that there are no other options which give the same kind of sponsorship.
The truth is there are other options.
quote:
For years and years people have said "there are other options", yet no-one, absolutely no-one, has come up with a concrete working example.
Because it's not their job to. It's Patchou's responsibility. I have made other suggestions anyway. File mirrors would sponsor him with their bandwidth if not for C2Media.
quote:
All too often the sponsorship which is used in Plus! is compared to google-ads and the likes and people say "it works for that site, so why wouldn't it work for Plus!".
If all Patchou had was Google ads on every page of his website, they would more than pay for the bandwidth. That is a fact. And it would certainly be true if he had file mirrors to take the load off his personal bandwidth. My free Anti-Virus (with more users than Plus!) has no ads in it.
quote:
Again, if there were other ways, Patchou would have used it already.
Again, conjecture.
quote:
but show that you don't know what it takes to have something like Plus! running and keeping it free.
It's not free by my definition of the word.
quote:
It simply isn't that easy as you let it seem. If it was, everybody would already be a billionair.
That makes no sense. I never said Patchou could get wealthy following my advice. In fact - he would probably have to get a real job and do Plus! as his hobby following my advice.
quote:
Not only doesn't this have to do with anything sponsor related. It is also against the rules to advertise for such illegal (yes it is 100% illagel what you do) material on this forum and therefore you're post is reported.
LOL, and where are the files? I tell you what, I'll upload one just for you:
It's all yours, that patch will convert the Kixx release to the original LucasArts floppy release (it will add the copy-protection). Illegal? You know - you may have me there...
quote:
The people from sysinternals do not depend on those tools for a living.
And Patchou shouldn't depend on Plus! for a living - if it's supposed to be freeware. In actual fact - Patchou
doesn't make a living from developing Plus!. He makes a living from selling
Circle Development Ltd's Product. He makes a fulltime living from people installing Malware. There is a clear distinction.
quote:
Again, he doesn't need to make a living from it.
Neither does Patchou - and he doesn't make a living from developing Plus! - he uses it to help him sell his sponsor's adware.
quote:
But there are also many people who do know that they install the sponsor and they want it to install.
Where are they? Are they the majority of users who install the sponsor - or the minority?
quote:
If you didn't understood what you were agreeing on you also wouldn't have signed the paper. If you did signed it, you explicitly said that you understood. In case something like this happened (god forbid) and you took it to court, you would actually loose.
No I wouldn't. Signing a contract under false pretences voids at least part of the contract - and in most cases would void the entire contract. Hospitals have a duty of care, and part of that duty of care means that you understand what surgery you're agreeing to.
Don't forget the case in England which more than proves I'm right - a woman volunteered to be a test subject for IVF. They then created an embryo, and it died before they implanted it. They realized it had died because it was exposed to air - and then she got so upset about it that she sued them for killing the embryo - she said she did not understand that is what they would do - they did not inform her that it was a possibility that they would cause the death of the embryo ... and she
won the case.
It is illegal for doctors or hospital staff to give you information that is not sufficient for you to understand to make an informed choice.
quote:
If he would, he would already be a billionair living on a remote island and not thinking about supporting or bug fixing Plus!.
Rubbish.
quote:
As a matter of fact, I do install the sponsor, and I do know what it does and also know what it isn't and doesn't.
You're not a general user though. You may as well be the head of Marlboro saying "as it happens I love to smoke". You're biased. General users do not feel the same way.
/ –
