Loudfrog has been down for 5 days. Not a peep from the owners.
http://www.powersellersunite.com/about21643.html
The early history of Loudfrog:
http://web.archive.org/web/2005050802351...e5039.html
loudfrog owner responds to spam complaints may 2005 Wrote:Hi Everyone,
I have paid a marketing agency to promote our site to targeted audiences. I have used their service before and no one has complained. I respect your privacy and I am sensitive to spam. With our email campaign I provided the option for people to remove themselves from the email list. I also provided my full contact information.
The agency assured me the emails they have are a targeted list of people who have given consent to receive messages. Sorry if you are offended, I will remove your email address off the list but I need to know what I am removing, or you can respond to the unsubscribe and it will be removed. We will investigate this further, and get rid of the marketing agency if this is the root of the problem.
I have recently subscribed online to National Geographic, they have a note saying that they sell a list of email, and if I do not wish to have my email added, that I must click the button to insure this doesn't happen. Could this have happened to you somewhere? I can assure you we did not "harvest" emails from FAS or OTWA.
Matt, my apologies if this has caused a problem for you, it truly was not my intent. I do not harvest emails from your site in any way.
Razhick
loudfrog owner asks spammed user to apologize for complaining about being spamme Wrote:Out of respect for Matt and the good folks at the FAS community, we do not wish to blow this issue out of proportion. This is why we have not been responding quickly or harshly to this thread.
We have evidence of 184 places where [user]'s email can be found on the web. Yesterday, this was just a simple e-mail, today I know more about [spammed user], all because of the request for proof. We do not wish to embarrass her, but we do hope she is big enough to apologize to Matt about her accusation that her email address must have come from FAS (or OTWA). We have privately messaged [spammed user] to give her an "out" to close this issue, but she appears to be blocking our messages.
Matt has provided a community where we can all express our opinions, and we must also be allowed to agree to disagree. We are closing this issue from our standpoint, unless [spammed user] wants us to post the evidence. She may pm us for the info to see we are truthful.
Bullfrog
BBH Wrote:Loudfrog your public response to [spammed user] in answer to her complaint that she received unsolicited email from your site is unacceptable--especially asking her to "be big enough apologize to Matt".
It doesn't matter which site her email address was harvested from--it just matters that the advertising email she received from your company was unsolicited.
SPAM is illegal. YOU and YOUR COMPANY can be fined for sending spam. [spammed user] did not violate the law by receiving SPAM, but you did violate the law by sending it.
loudfrog owner responds to BBH Wrote:BBH,
It figures you would say this. I follow your conversations of OTWA and other places, you tend to be negative for a lot of things.
Loudfrog is not my bread and butter, it is my hobby. I love helping people by providing a place to sell their items.
You are entitled to your opinion, this is just part of agreeing to disagree.
We ask [spammed user] to apologize to Matt because she INSISTED that her email came from here, and it did not. This is unfair to Matt and FAS.
BBH Wrote:Loudfrog--did you learn your attitude towards SPAM and potential customers from Ray Wagglepop? 
tolensmiley:
p.s. The last thread I started at OTWA was negative. It was a thread about another auction site (R***b*y) that harvested emails from FAS and spammed many people here. That auction site, like you, also tried to blame their "marketing agency" for the spam, and they showed a similar attitude to customers who complained about SPAM.
spammed user responds to Loudfrog Wrote:Your attempts to turn the tables, and place blame on me are pathetic. You are the one sending SPAM, not me.
Read the whole disclaimer on the home page forbidding Rolex, Oakley, and Mont Blanc employees from viewing any of the site's pages. :blinkie:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yKO.../+loudfrog&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Calling all knockoff sellers, your quest for a new home is over! SpamFrog welcomes you with open arms!
Their disclaimer is unbelievable. :blinkie:
[quote author=sneakymagenta link=topic=18357.msg72175#msg72175 date=1219961714]
Read the whole disclaimer on the home page forbidding Rolex, Oakley, and Mont Blanc employees from viewing any of the site's pages. :blinkie:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yKO.../+loudfrog&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Calling all knockoff sellers, your quest for a new home is over! SpamFrog welcomes you with open arms!
[/quote]
That disclaimer is one of the more pathetic and asinine pieces of garbage I've read on the net.
I think you should go post the link to spamfrog on the purse board.
tolensmiley:
Hi googlebot! (this thread is already #7 on a search for "rolex and loudfrog"
http://www.google.com/search?q=rolex%20and%20loudfrog&sourceid=groowe&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
766 listings for fake Rolexes on Loudfrog:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=rolex+and+loudfrog+%2Bsite%3Aloudfrog.com&btnG=Search
A sample of Loudfrog's Chinese knockoff Rolex listings:
Quote:Rolex Daytona Chronograph - White (BRS) RXG257720, Crazy Deal ... Archive
Sale Price: 137.00, Rolex Daytona Chronograph 2T Black 14k (SS) RXG1307704 ... If you enjoy loudfrog, recommend Loudfrog to your friends and family. ...
www.loudfrog.com/itemdetail.aspx?detailID=279628 - 64k -
Quote:Rolex Mens Watch Date Just Diamonds Bezel and Dial rxn10, Brand ... Archive
Sale Price: 100.00, Rolex Day Date Mens Watch 18K Bezel Band Black Dial RX748 ... If you enjoy loudfrog, recommend Loudfrog to your friends and family. ...
www.loudfrog.com/itemdetail.aspx?detailID=268441 - 65k - Cached - Similar pages
166 Loudfrog counterfeit MontBlanc listings:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=montblanc+and+loudfrog+%2Bsite%3Aloudfrog.com&btnG=Search
Quote:Louis Vuitton LV-003 L.V 005 TAMBOUR CHRONO SS AUTOMATIC BLA Archive
Mont Blanc MB-005 MONTBLANC 003 SS QUARTZ BLACK Sale Price: 90.00 ... If you enjoy loudfrog, recommend Loudfrog to your friends and family. Did you know? ...
www.loudfrog.com/itemdetail.aspx?detailID=280767 - 46k - Cached - Similar pages
EDIT: a counterfeit Rolex seller from Malaysia. [reread the Plunderhere thread for a clue as to who it might be]
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:um6...udfrog.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=18&gl=us
Quote:I think you should go post the link to spamfrog on the purse board.
I think they already know.
From the knowknockoffsforum
http://knowknockoffsforum.com/forums/ind...opic=34701
Quote:Posted Feb 15 2008, 08:39 AM
Quote:Could someone please check this store:
http://www.loudfrog.com/seller.aspx?UserID=15420
They seem to have a lot of high end bags at fairly low prices and I am not knowledgeable enough to know if they are real or not.
They're all fake. Not a single bag is authentic...none of them. They're all the so-called mirror copy fakes being sold on ebay by the bulk of the fake bag sellers who continue to list and scam uneducated ebay handbag buyers.Â
Quote:Yes, you really do know. If it sounds too good to be true it usually is. You can not buy an authentic Gucci bag for $120-$140.
This website needs to be reported to the designers. They need to file a lawsuit like they did with Ebay, only you can bet this site will fold because they don't have big bucks like Ebay. Many websites have sprung up selling counterfeit bags lately.Â
FYI, Loudfrog's parent company is Virtual Enterprises Inc
http://www.ve.ca/
Loudfrog Disclaimer Wrote:Disclaimer
By viewing this page and any other page you agree to such terms. If you are affiliated with or working for Oakley, Rolex, MontBlanc, or any of the enclosed name brand mentioned products either directly or indirectly, or any other related group, or were formally a worker you CANNOT enter this web site, cannot access any of its files and you cannot view any of the HTML files. If in fact you are affiliated or were affiliated with the above said companies, by entering this site you are not agreeing to these terms and are violating code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1995 and that means that you CANNOT threaten our ISP(s) or any person(s) or company storing these files, and CANNOT prosecute any person(s) affiliated with this page which includes family, friends or individuals who run or enter this site. By continuing to enter this site, you are expressly and impliedly agreeing to all terms as stated above and affirm taht you are in compliance with all federal, state and local laws concerning the content of this site.
Also, Loudfrog.com is in no way affiliated with, representing, associated or sponsored by Rolex, Oakley, Montblanc, or any other mentioned name brands or their products. We do not represent our replica products to be original nor do we represent that they are exact copies, therefore they do not violate any copyright laws. We simply ask consumers to compare quality and price of the above mentioned name brands to ours. Any reference to brand names or "compare to" are made strictly for comparison and to encourage consumers to immediatly go buy the real product after comparing.
http://web.archive.org/web/2007112402312...dfrog.com/
Let's see what others have to say about
"code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1995" 
Wikipedia Wrote:The Internet Privacy Act is a non-existent and fictitious law cited by file sharing, warez and peer-to-peer networks in order to deter anti-P2P organizations such as the RIAA. Networks which share music, films and software often display the fictitious act in an attempt to protect themselves from arrest by being able to claim entrapment in court. In the statement, websites claim that it prevents organizations whom may be associated with anti-P2P or government organizations from entering the site or network as it would breach the terms of the act.[1][2]
According to the statement which many sites display, it was signed by Bill Clinton in 1995, but in reality he never signed the act as it never existed. Using this and other such "disclaimers" would actually make it easier for such a site to be found via the major search engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Privacy_Act
LPOnline Wrote:"Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1995" is cited at the main page or in the disclaimer portion of many Web sites which are running criminal enterprises and offering illegal items.
The Internet Privacy Act does not exist!
Additionally, former U, S. President William Jefferson Clinton never signed into law any legislation which in any manner restricts anyone's access to Web sites selling illegal items. No similar law exists anywhere in the world. There is no law which in any way prohibits or restricts instituting criminal charges or litigation against such sites based upon a site's posting of this imaginary act.. Regardless of a posting of this fictitious act, any information obtained from these sites may be used by law enforcement and trademark holders for prosecution and litigation purposes.
http://www.lpconline.com/internet_privacy_act.html
snopes Wrote:Claim:Â Â Citing "code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act" protects web site operators from prosecution.
Status:Â Â False.
Origins: The passage quoted above, or variants thereof, can be found on thousands of web sites (particularly those that traffic in pirated software, music, and films), placed there in the misguided belief that it actually provides web site operators protection against being prosecuted for engaging in illegal, Internet-related activities...
http://www.snopes.com/legal/privacy.asp
TheLaw Wrote:question: I was wondering if it is legal for internet web sites to sell replica designer items if they say that their items are replicas? For example, Tiffany Jewelry with Tiffany&Co stamped on it. Or a Coach Hand bag with the Coach Logo on it. Aren't they violating trademark laws?
I have also noticed that these sites all quote the Internet Privacy Act code 431.322.12 signed by President Clinton. Is this act for real?
answer: [i]It is absolutely illegal to sell replica merchandise bearing the trade name of the original company on it. This is infringement defined! The code you cite is fake and an attempt by sites to create the illusion of legality...
http://www.thelaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7495
more:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=internet+privacy+act+431.322.12&btnG=Search
[quote author=regic link=topic=18357.msg72176#msg72176 date=1219963239]
Their disclaimer is unbelievable. :blinkie:
[/quote]
More unbelievable is any seller who would tarnish their business' reputation by selling on a site that has a statement on its home page which openly condones illegal activities.
Mandy Wrote:More unbelievable is any seller who would tarnish their business' reputation by selling on a site that has a statement on its home page which openly condones illegal activities.
If they're selling fake garbage, why would they even care? And, more to the point, how stupid/unethical would you have to be to actually list on such a site, and if you do so, it seems pretty clear that your business rep is not your primary concern.
tolensmiley:
