classic esea
ESEA Scams user out of $30,739.85
posted in
Esports
Id love to hop on the fuck esea train but the guy set up a google ad and made it look just like an official esea ad but link to his referral link. esea's paid out like a million $ for this referral stuff so its not them just trying to screw someone out of 30K, they're annoyed that he mislead their customers to take advantage of their referral program.
Id love to hop on the fuck esea train but the guy set up a google ad and made it look just like an official esea ad but link to his referral link. esea's paid out like a million $ for this referral stuff so its not them just trying to screw someone out of 30K, they're annoyed that he mislead their customers to take advantage of their referral program.
lets all move to cevofoo's new prolander league!!!
lets all move to cevofoo's new prolander league!!!
wolsneMikeMatId love to hop on the fuck esea train but the guy set up a google ad and made it look just like an official esea ad but link to his referral link. esea's paid out like a million $ for this referral stuff so its not them just trying to screw someone out of 30K, they're annoyed that he mislead their customers to take advantage of their referral program.He operated within the confines of the rules of all agencies involved, and ESEA is trying to wrongfully claim copyright infringement when they don't even hold the copyright to their own brand. This dude spent months of his time and went out of his way to make a buck legitimately, and for that he deserves to be paid up.
uhh
FewOwnsMario's actions also violated the ESEA Terms of Use (“ESEA Terms”), the current version of which has been in effect since 2014. (See https://play.esea.net/index.php?s=content&d=terms_of_use.) Among other things, the ESEA Terms prohibit unauthorized use of ESEA’s name and use of ESEA’s services for commercial purposes. Launching an ad campaign to persuade strangers to take an action that will generate money for the advertiser is not a non-commercial activity. Even the ad itself is not personal or noncommercial: it looks like a business advertisement. (In fact, it looks like an ESEA advertisement, as discussed above.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/6cbh7g/referral_program/dhtfywr/
yeah..
[quote=wolsne][quote=MikeMat]Id love to hop on the fuck esea train but the guy set up a google ad and made it look just like an official esea ad but link to his referral link. esea's paid out like a million $ for this referral stuff so its not them just trying to screw someone out of 30K, they're annoyed that he mislead their customers to take advantage of their referral program.[/quote]
He operated within the confines of the rules of all agencies involved, and ESEA is trying to wrongfully claim copyright infringement when they don't even hold the copyright to their own brand. This dude spent months of his time and went out of his way to make a buck legitimately, and for that he deserves to be paid up.[/quote]
uhh
[quote=FewOwns]Mario's actions also violated the ESEA Terms of Use (“ESEA Terms”), the current version of which has been in effect since 2014. (See https://play.esea.net/index.php?s=content&d=terms_of_use.) Among other things, the ESEA Terms prohibit unauthorized use of ESEA’s name and use of ESEA’s services for commercial purposes. Launching an ad campaign to persuade strangers to take an action that will generate money for the advertiser is not a non-commercial activity. Even the ad itself is not personal or noncommercial: it looks like a business advertisement. (In fact, it looks like an ESEA advertisement, as discussed above.) [/quote]
https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/6cbh7g/referral_program/dhtfywr/
yeah..
He operated within the confines of the rules of all agencies involved, and ESEA is trying to wrongfully claim copyright infringement when they don't even hold the copyright to their own brand. This dude spent months of his time and went out of his way to make a buck legitimately, and for that he deserves to be paid up.[/quote]
uhh
[quote=FewOwns]Mario's actions also violated the ESEA Terms of Use (“ESEA Terms”), the current version of which has been in effect since 2014. (See https://play.esea.net/index.php?s=content&d=terms_of_use.) Among other things, the ESEA Terms prohibit unauthorized use of ESEA’s name and use of ESEA’s services for commercial purposes. Launching an ad campaign to persuade strangers to take an action that will generate money for the advertiser is not a non-commercial activity. Even the ad itself is not personal or noncommercial: it looks like a business advertisement. (In fact, it looks like an ESEA advertisement, as discussed above.) [/quote]
https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/6cbh7g/referral_program/dhtfywr/
yeah..
my point was saying what he did was completely legitimate is a bit of a stretch. Making a point that ESEA should just rollover and give this guy money who clearly did something at least a little shady is a bit odd to me.
I'd agree with you in that the whole situation, on both sides, is pretty grey and I don't think something like this happening could've had a happy resolution, but I also disagree that this guy "This dude spent months of his time and went out of his way to make a buck legitimately, and for that he deserves to be paid up."
Obviously, I think it would be entirely understandable for ESEA not to pay this guy for taking advantage of their system.
my point was saying what he did was completely legitimate is a bit of a stretch. Making a point that ESEA should just rollover and give this guy money who clearly did something at least a little shady is a bit odd to me.
I'd agree with you in that the whole situation, on both sides, is pretty grey and I don't think something like this happening could've had a happy resolution, but I also disagree that this guy "This dude spent months of his time and went out of his way to make a buck legitimately, and for that he deserves to be paid up."
Obviously, I think it would be entirely understandable for ESEA not to pay this guy for taking advantage of their system.
I'd agree with you in that the whole situation, on both sides, is pretty grey and I don't think something like this happening could've had a happy resolution, but I also disagree that this guy "This dude spent months of his time and went out of his way to make a buck legitimately, and for that he deserves to be paid up."
Obviously, I think it would be entirely understandable for ESEA not to pay this guy for taking advantage of their system.
that is a fair argument that does justice to the situation
that is a fair argument that does justice to the situation
Mario found a way to exploit the system and esea just needs to accept it and pay the man.
Mario found a way to exploit the system and esea just needs to accept it and pay the man.
tojolet's all move to cevo!!!!
I hear TFCL has 6s prizes
[quote=tojo]let's all move to cevo!!!![/quote]
I hear TFCL has 6s prizes
I hear TFCL has 6s prizes
Lmao, esea was like, "oh shit this guy just made a fuck ton of money off of us, let's find some reason not to pay him"
Lmao, esea was like, "oh shit this guy just made a fuck ton of money off of us, let's find some reason not to pay him"
wolsne...they don't even hold the copyright to their own brand.
they dont own the trademark for esea, that's different to the copyright of their tagline and brand image, which was featured prominently in the ad.
http://i.imgur.com/URUz8Rf.png
this ad looks 100% like an esea ad and uses their tagline. esea's complaint was that the ad broke google's rules, specifically on misrepresentation and destination requirements.
esea were more than fair on this: they offered him $5k plus the cost of the advertisement, and let him keep the original $3.5k he took out. they didn't try to retroactively apply the rules they added on using third party advertisements to get referrals. it's true that esea would probably have gotten most of these subscribers anyway, and the guy basically wants free money (money that he arguably was promised, but he essentially gamed the system to get).
the amount of blind downvotes in the reddit thread shows how much people hate esea though
[quote=wolsne]...they don't even hold the copyright to their own brand.[/quote]
they dont own the trademark for esea, that's different to the copyright of their tagline and brand image, which was featured prominently in the ad.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/URUz8Rf.png[/img]
this ad looks 100% like an esea ad and uses their tagline. esea's complaint was that the ad broke google's rules, specifically on [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/6cbh7g/referral_program/dhtfywr/]misrepresentation and destination requirements[/url].
esea were more than fair on this: they offered him $5k plus the cost of the advertisement, and let him keep the original $3.5k he took out. they didn't try to retroactively apply the rules they added on using third party advertisements to get referrals. it's true that esea would probably have gotten most of these subscribers anyway, and the guy basically wants free money (money that he arguably was promised, but he essentially gamed the system to get).
the amount of blind downvotes in the reddit thread shows how much people hate esea though
they dont own the trademark for esea, that's different to the copyright of their tagline and brand image, which was featured prominently in the ad.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/URUz8Rf.png[/img]
this ad looks 100% like an esea ad and uses their tagline. esea's complaint was that the ad broke google's rules, specifically on [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/6cbh7g/referral_program/dhtfywr/]misrepresentation and destination requirements[/url].
esea were more than fair on this: they offered him $5k plus the cost of the advertisement, and let him keep the original $3.5k he took out. they didn't try to retroactively apply the rules they added on using third party advertisements to get referrals. it's true that esea would probably have gotten most of these subscribers anyway, and the guy basically wants free money (money that he arguably was promised, but he essentially gamed the system to get).
the amount of blind downvotes in the reddit thread shows how much people hate esea though
gemmesea were more than fair on this: they offered him $5k plus the cost of the advertisement, and let him keep the original $3.5k he took out.
fair is paying him the amount he is owed. If they didn't use google adwords themselves beforehand that's their own damn problem, he legitimately made them a shit ton of money and the only reason they didn't pay out was because they owed him $20k and then spent months trying to find a technicality to avoid paying him in full.
If they had an issue with the way he was making them money they should have brought it up before he made them so much money. It's just such convenient timing for them and it's incredibly scummy no matter what way you look at it.
[quote=gemm]esea were more than fair on this: they offered him $5k plus the cost of the advertisement, and let him keep the original $3.5k he took out.[/quote]
fair is paying him the amount he is owed. If they didn't use google adwords themselves beforehand that's their own damn problem, he legitimately made them a shit ton of money and the only reason they didn't pay out was because they owed him $20k and then spent months trying to find a technicality to avoid paying him in full.
If they had an issue with the way he was making them money they should have brought it up before he made them so much money. It's just such convenient timing for them and it's incredibly scummy no matter what way you look at it.
fair is paying him the amount he is owed. If they didn't use google adwords themselves beforehand that's their own damn problem, he legitimately made them a shit ton of money and the only reason they didn't pay out was because they owed him $20k and then spent months trying to find a technicality to avoid paying him in full.
If they had an issue with the way he was making them money they should have brought it up before he made them so much money. It's just such convenient timing for them and it's incredibly scummy no matter what way you look at it.
This just in multimillion dollar company refuses to shell out 30k. If they allowed this to go through; imagine Mario deciding to make a guide or something similar to getting esea referrals for people who aren't popular. They'd literally be running themselves into the ground if they let this through.
Have to draw a line in the sand somewhere
This just in multimillion dollar company refuses to shell out 30k. If they allowed this to go through; imagine Mario deciding to make a guide or something similar to getting esea referrals for people who aren't popular. They'd literally be running themselves into the ground if they let this through.
Have to draw a line in the sand somewhere
Have to draw a line in the sand somewhere
aim-This just in multimillion dollar company refuses to shell out 30k. If they allowed this to go through; imagine Mario deciding to make a guide or something similar to getting esea referrals for people who aren't popular. They'd literally be running themselves into the ground if they let this through.
Have to draw a line in the sand somewhere
because it's so hard to amend the terms and conditions of the referral program to make it clear it isn't appropriate in the future. The issue is that you can't do that shit retroactively. They're going to get their asses handed to them in court for this.
[quote=aim-]This just in multimillion dollar company refuses to shell out 30k. If they allowed this to go through; imagine Mario deciding to make a guide or something similar to getting esea referrals for people who aren't popular. They'd literally be running themselves into the ground if they let this through.
Have to draw a line in the sand somewhere[/quote]
because it's so hard to amend the terms and conditions of the referral program to make it clear it isn't appropriate in the future. The issue is that you can't do that shit retroactively. They're going to get their asses handed to them in court for this.
Have to draw a line in the sand somewhere[/quote]
because it's so hard to amend the terms and conditions of the referral program to make it clear it isn't appropriate in the future. The issue is that you can't do that shit retroactively. They're going to get their asses handed to them in court for this.
nopeaim-This just in multimillion dollar company refuses to shell out 30k. If they allowed this to go through; imagine Mario deciding to make a guide or something similar to getting esea referrals for people who aren't popular. They'd literally be running themselves into the ground if they let this through.because it's so hard to amend the terms and conditions of the referral program to make it clear it isn't appropriate in the future. The issue is that you can't do that shit retroactively. They're going to get their asses handed to them in court for this.
Have to draw a line in the sand somewhere
lmao this won't go to court. and theyd be having the same backlash if they did amend the terms and conditions, because then instead of making a guide, mario would just make a post about esea making them out to be in the wrong for stopping that type of ad
[quote=nope][quote=aim-]This just in multimillion dollar company refuses to shell out 30k. If they allowed this to go through; imagine Mario deciding to make a guide or something similar to getting esea referrals for people who aren't popular. They'd literally be running themselves into the ground if they let this through.
Have to draw a line in the sand somewhere[/quote]
because it's so hard to amend the terms and conditions of the referral program to make it clear it isn't appropriate in the future. The issue is that you can't do that shit retroactively. They're going to get their asses handed to them in court for this.[/quote]
lmao this won't go to court. and theyd be having the same backlash if they did amend the terms and conditions, because then instead of making a guide, mario would just make a post about esea making them out to be in the wrong for stopping that type of ad
Have to draw a line in the sand somewhere[/quote]
because it's so hard to amend the terms and conditions of the referral program to make it clear it isn't appropriate in the future. The issue is that you can't do that shit retroactively. They're going to get their asses handed to them in court for this.[/quote]
lmao this won't go to court. and theyd be having the same backlash if they did amend the terms and conditions, because then instead of making a guide, mario would just make a post about esea making them out to be in the wrong for stopping that type of ad
nopegemmesea were more than fair on this: they offered him $5k plus the cost of the advertisement, and let him keep the original $3.5k he took out.fair is paying him the amount he is owed. If they didn't use google adwords themselves beforehand that's their own damn problem, he legitimately made them a shit ton of money...
how many people do you think who google searched "esea" only signed up because they saw his ad right above esea's main page? he basically siphoned clicks from the top result through his referral link
[quote=nope][quote=gemm]esea were more than fair on this: they offered him $5k plus the cost of the advertisement, and let him keep the original $3.5k he took out.[/quote]
fair is paying him the amount he is owed. If they didn't use google adwords themselves beforehand that's their own damn problem, he legitimately made them a shit ton of money...[/quote]
how many people do you think who google searched "esea" only signed up because they saw his ad right above esea's main page? he basically siphoned clicks from the top result through his referral link
fair is paying him the amount he is owed. If they didn't use google adwords themselves beforehand that's their own damn problem, he legitimately made them a shit ton of money...[/quote]
how many people do you think who google searched "esea" only signed up because they saw his ad right above esea's main page? he basically siphoned clicks from the top result through his referral link
Soooooo
1. They knew about the ad and still paid out the first month. Can't pay out one month and then claim it's illegal on the second month.
2. They changed their ToS after this all happened and are now claiming it's against their ToS. That doesn't work.
3. Then they claimed it was against Google's ToS. Apart from that being a terrible argument, trying to enforce other companies' ToS when they themselves clearly seemed to take no issue, it really isn't violating those ToS.
4. ESEA doesn't easily give up so they found a "better" argument. He infringed on copyrighted and trademarked material. Now that might work if he didn't link to ESEA's OWN website (not even forwarding via his own server, direct link) and if ESEA actually owned the ESEA trademark. They don't, apparently. And there seems to be no copyright on anything ESEA related.
5. Apparently the case just got moved to California. You know, where ESEA lost the bitcoin lawsuit and now aren't allowed to pull anything even remotely shady or they'll get sued into non-existence.
Let me grab my popcorn.
EDIT: Forgot to mention two other points.
Soooooo
1. They knew about the ad and still paid out the first month. Can't pay out one month and then claim it's illegal on the second month.
2. They changed their ToS after this all happened and are now claiming it's against their ToS. That doesn't work.
3. Then they claimed it was against Google's ToS. Apart from that being a terrible argument, trying to enforce other companies' ToS when they themselves clearly seemed to take no issue, it really isn't violating those ToS.
4. ESEA doesn't easily give up so they found a "better" argument. He infringed on copyrighted and trademarked material. Now that might work if he didn't link to ESEA's OWN website (not even forwarding via his own server, direct link) and if ESEA actually owned the ESEA trademark. They don't, apparently. And there seems to be no copyright on anything ESEA related.
5. Apparently the case just got moved to California. You know, where ESEA lost the bitcoin lawsuit and now aren't allowed to pull anything even remotely shady or they'll get sued into non-existence.
Let me grab my popcorn.
EDIT: Forgot to mention two other points.
1. They knew about the ad and still paid out the first month. Can't pay out one month and then claim it's illegal on the second month.
2. They changed their ToS after this all happened and are now claiming it's against their ToS. That doesn't work.
3. Then they claimed it was against Google's ToS. Apart from that being a terrible argument, trying to enforce other companies' ToS when they themselves clearly seemed to take no issue, it really isn't violating those ToS.
4. ESEA doesn't easily give up so they found a "better" argument. He infringed on copyrighted and trademarked material. Now that might work if he didn't link to ESEA's OWN website (not even forwarding via his own server, direct link) and if ESEA actually owned the ESEA trademark. They don't, apparently. And there seems to be no copyright on anything ESEA related.
5. Apparently the case just got moved to California. You know, where ESEA lost the bitcoin lawsuit and now aren't allowed to pull anything even remotely shady or they'll get sued into non-existence.
Let me grab my popcorn.
EDIT: Forgot to mention two other points.
Not letting a moron game the system isn't "scamming" him
Not letting a moron game the system isn't "scamming" him
lootNot letting a moron game the system isn't "scamming" him
If he gamed the system I really wonder who's the moron
[quote=loot]Not letting a moron game the system isn't "scamming" him[/quote]
If he gamed the system I really wonder who's the moron
If he gamed the system I really wonder who's the moron
He took advantage of ESEA's poor referral policy & online advertising. Smart guy.
Pay him, change your TOS and move on.
He took advantage of ESEA's poor referral policy & online advertising. Smart guy.
Pay him, change your TOS and move on.
Pay him, change your TOS and move on.
The retards should just paid him the legal costs will be way more expensive lmfao
The retards should just paid him the legal costs will be way more expensive lmfao
gemmesea were more than fair on this: they offered him $5k plus the cost of the advertisement, and let him keep the original $3.5k he took out. they didn't try to retroactively apply the rules they added on using third party advertisements to get referrals. it's true that esea would probably have gotten most of these subscribers anyway, and the guy basically wants free money (money that he arguably was promised, but he essentially gamed the system to get).
i mean how sketchy is that? hey we'll give you $8.5k plus expenses but we dont want to shell out all of the money? sounds like they got caught fucking up and are trying to minimize the financial damages.
also how can you say they'd probably get most of those subscribers...you're assuming the ONLY place his ad shows up is googling "esea" which is pretty idiotic imo.
the only reason esea cares is because the amount of money he made. if this guy had only made $500 trying this out they woulda paid him and not given a single fuck. that's not how it works.
[quote=gemm]
esea were more than fair on this: they offered him $5k plus the cost of the advertisement, and let him keep the original $3.5k he took out. they didn't try to retroactively apply the rules they added on using third party advertisements to get referrals. it's true that esea would probably have gotten most of these subscribers anyway, and the guy basically wants free money (money that he arguably was promised, but he essentially gamed the system to get).[/quote]
i mean how sketchy is that? hey we'll give you $8.5k plus expenses but we dont want to shell out all of the money? sounds like they got caught fucking up and are trying to minimize the financial damages.
also how can you say they'd probably get most of those subscribers...you're assuming the ONLY place his ad shows up is googling "esea" which is pretty idiotic imo.
the only reason esea cares is because the amount of money he made. if this guy had only made $500 trying this out they woulda paid him and not given a single fuck. that's not how it works.
esea were more than fair on this: they offered him $5k plus the cost of the advertisement, and let him keep the original $3.5k he took out. they didn't try to retroactively apply the rules they added on using third party advertisements to get referrals. it's true that esea would probably have gotten most of these subscribers anyway, and the guy basically wants free money (money that he arguably was promised, but he essentially gamed the system to get).[/quote]
i mean how sketchy is that? hey we'll give you $8.5k plus expenses but we dont want to shell out all of the money? sounds like they got caught fucking up and are trying to minimize the financial damages.
also how can you say they'd probably get most of those subscribers...you're assuming the ONLY place his ad shows up is googling "esea" which is pretty idiotic imo.
the only reason esea cares is because the amount of money he made. if this guy had only made $500 trying this out they woulda paid him and not given a single fuck. that's not how it works.
Esea should've payed the dude the full amount and THEN change the TOS to make it so that he cant abuse the system like that.
Esea should've payed the dude the full amount and THEN change the TOS to make it so that he cant abuse the system like that.
this is strike 3, strike 2 was this
this is strike 3, strike 2 was [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDE6QBvEOXg]this[/url]
if anybody would wanna help a brotha out for next season
https://play.esea.net/subscribe?r=724033
edit - thanks xoxo
if anybody would wanna help a brotha out for next season
https://play.esea.net/subscribe?r=724033
edit - thanks xoxo
https://play.esea.net/subscribe?r=724033
edit - thanks xoxo
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.