What happened with stereo80s?
- Thread starter koleloi
- Start date
- Status
Terry
Member (SA)
I added my contact details directly under the header image of the first page, just in case he wanted it taken down.
There was some kerfuffle about getting proof he actually owned the website, as I had no idea if he was who he said he was, but he mentioned it had been put back online, once I verified, that was proof enough for me, as I had no wish to keep it up if it was back online.
There was some kerfuffle about getting proof he actually owned the website, as I had no idea if he was who he said he was, but he mentioned it had been put back online, once I verified, that was proof enough for me, as I had no wish to keep it up if it was back online.
What I can't understand is how he could let the hosting service lapse in the course of trying to sell it for a hundred grand. The website is worth but a fraction of it's value potential if it's not up and running. It's like buying any business (restaurant, store, whatever). A business that is running and books to prove the stated revenues/liabilties/profits is worth tons more than a business, shuttered, nothing to show defacto profit except a statement regardign "potential". For my hard earned money, potential is worth zilch.
Terry
Member (SA)
Superduper is right on the money, websites are valued at a multiple of actual earnings, no income means no value, apart from aged domain. If he values the stolen pictures and some html (intellectual property) at $75,000-$100,000 then I've got a Sydney harbour bridge for sale. 
A more realistic value is $500-$1000 dollars IMO. (and that may be stretching it).
Still, good luck to him.
A more realistic value is $500-$1000 dollars IMO. (and that may be stretching it).
Still, good luck to him.
It's funny the whole content/copyright stuff on the internet. For example, who the hell allowed Google to create their own site images.google.com using everyone else's images/copyrighted material. Why aren't they being sued? Heck, they've sucked up everybody's web sites without their permission. What about Internet Time Machines where you can actually view your old sites because they sucked it up and are serving it on their own sites.
Linking to sites in a search engine is one thing, but Google has stolen, kept, and databased other people's content. There was an outfit that came into my kids school to take pictures. The photographer had a crappy web site and was having people go to his site to purchase the photos he took. To many parents surprise, they ended up finding their kids photos published on Google Images without any consent by the parents. Good luck getting Google to remove that. Google is evil, but the photographer also had no rights to publish kids photos without consent on his crappy site because he was too cheap to hire a professional to build a site that could actually protect his photos. He's running a for profit business.
Sorry, I know I'm getting away from boombox as a topic.
Linking to sites in a search engine is one thing, but Google has stolen, kept, and databased other people's content. There was an outfit that came into my kids school to take pictures. The photographer had a crappy web site and was having people go to his site to purchase the photos he took. To many parents surprise, they ended up finding their kids photos published on Google Images without any consent by the parents. Good luck getting Google to remove that. Google is evil, but the photographer also had no rights to publish kids photos without consent on his crappy site because he was too cheap to hire a professional to build a site that could actually protect his photos. He's running a for profit business.
Sorry, I know I'm getting away from boombox as a topic.
- Status