Subscription Porn Site SLAPPed Down After Suing RedTube For Undermining Its Business Model
from the competing-isn't-undermining dept
We've joked in the past about how many of the complaints we see from companies about new, more innovative competitors, is that they somehow represent "felony interference of a business model." Some companies, it seems, like to believe that if they have a successful business model, any new competitor that changes the market around must be doing so illegally. Eric Goldman points us to just such a lawsuit in California, where the proprietor of a subscription based porn website sued RedTube, one of many, many porn-focused free streaming video sites, and many of RedTube's advertisers, arguing unfair competition. Basically, the argument was that by setting up a website and offering these porn videos for free, while making money on the advertising, RedTube was effectively "dumping" its product on the market below cost in order to harm the market and make money elsewhere.
RedTube, in response, filed an anti-SLAPP claim, saying that the lawsuit sought to silence RedTube exercising its First Amendment rights of speech. While a lower court mostly agreed, it did leave open one small piece of the unfair competition claim, related to the issue of the claim that someone at RedTube's parent company signed up for the plaintiff's subscription website, downloaded the videos, and posted them on RedTube. However, the California state appeals court rejects the lower court's argument, and agrees that even this claim should be tossed out, because it's only unfair competition if the plaintiff can show that he has, in fact, lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition. Since the plaintiff was unable to do so, the court ruled that this claim got tossed out too (though, if true, you do wonder if there might be a copyright issue -- which does not appear to have been raised here).
On the overall point of underpricing the market unfairly, the court points out how silly this is, noting that giving away free content in exchange for advertising is a business model that's been around for ages, and is hardly a form of unfair competition:
If Bright's business model sounds familiar it's because it's the business model
typical of broadcast radio and television stations in the United States not to mention
thousands of local newspapers and, more recently, tens of thousands of Internet websites
including Youtube, CNN and Video.Yahoo.
The court also points out, in its opening, that business models change, and companies need to keep up -- and they shouldn't expect the law to keep their old business models in place:
In the 21st century, businesses of all kinds are having to adapt to a constantly
changing commercial landscape. The business that the parties describe as the "adult
entertainment" industry is no exception. Websites that originally made their money by
offering such material on a subscription or pay-per-view basis are being replaced by
"tube" websites which offer their content for free and make their money through
advertising.
There's also an interesting discussion over whether or not RedTube qualifies for SLAPP protections, as the site's content must involve the "furtherance of their right of free speech on a public issue." The plaintiff said that his complaint had nothing to do with stopping speech, but from the "anti-competitive conduct." The court notes that even publishing videos of porn online is conduct in the furtherance of speech and, in fact, that there is a "substantial public interest in the kind of sexually explicit videos shown on tube-sites such as Redtube." That's one way to put it.
The final point that seemed worth discussing on this is just how silly some "anti-competitive" behavior laws and rulings can be. Part of the plaintiff's argument here was to bring up a bit of caselaw involving two competing San Fransisco tourist cruises, where one firm got in trouble for selling tickets below cost, even though the firm made it up elsewhere. The court rejects this, by claiming that the earlier ruling doesn't apply here because RedTube "does not sell two separate products." That seems silly to me, and if anything really just highlights the problem with the original court ruling about using the tickets as a loss leader. If you read the ruling this way, you get a nonsensical result: giving away the videos for free would be legal, but charging a penny for them could suddenly be seen as unfair competition, because now it would be "selling" two separate products. Bundling multiple products, such that some are given away free or cheaply in the interest of a larger business model should never be seen as anti-competitive on its own. While I agree with the
outcome, it seemed like this was the most confused part of the court's ruling, in that it tapdanced around what was, basically, a really bad ruling. The real issue should be to get rid of any rule that says such kinds of bundles are against the law in the first place.
12 Comments | Leave a Comment..
The latest to try is Ongo, a two-year-old start-up that will introduce its Web site today, with an iPad app to follow.
Ongo is backed by three major media companies: The Washington Post Company, The New York Times Company and Gannett, which publishes USA Today. Each has invested $4 million.
Ongo is for readers who peruse a variety of publications every day and want to read them all in one place. It shows articles from about 20 publications, and is in talks with dozens more.
The catch: Readers pay $6.99 a month for the service, while most of the Web sites whose articles it shows are free. In exchange, readers see no ads or cluttered pages, and can search for articles, save them and share them with friends — all from one site.
“The key thing is they don’t have to go to the other sites” to read the stories, said Kevin Skaggs, Ongo’s chief content officer and a former producer for The San Francisco Chronicle’s Web site.
Many publications generally flinch at that idea, because they want readers to visit their sites and see their ads. But in this case, they are sharing their content with Ongo because Ongo will share its revenue with them. And, Ongo said, it may attract new readers when its editors highlight stories that readers may not have otherwise seen.
Other apps, like Pulse and Flipboard, offer mobile news readers for free. And people turn to Web sites like The Huffington Post, Twitter and Facebook to see stories aggregated by editors or acquaintances.
Ongo is different because it gathers stories from a large number of publications, people can access it on the Web or on mobile devices, and professional editors choose the top stories, said Alex Kazim, Ongo’s founder and chief executive and a former eBay executive.
“I just don’t think my friends are as good as professional editors in finding stories for me to read,” he said.
For $6.99, readers get all articles from The Washington Post and USA Today and some from The New York Times, the Associated Press and The Financial Times, along with stories from one more publication of their choice. Adding other publications costs an additional fee, between 99 cents and $14 a month, which the publisher sets.
According to Ongo’s research, just 12 percent of people read enough publications online each day that they would want a service like Ongo, Mr. Kazim said. But if it is successful, he hopes to include blogs, magazines and video, making it a one-stop shop for the news.
Ongo looks like a newspaper, with headlines that a team of six editors chooses to highlight and sections like sports, business and opinion. Readers can search a topic in the news and see articles from a variety of publications.
Like other sites, Ongo lets people share articles with friends through e-mail, Facebook and Twitter. But it also lets people set up groups — family members or colleagues, for instance — for sharing, and facilitates chats about articles. If someone who is not an Ongo member signs up after reading a shared story, the sender gets a free month’s membership.
First-time Ongo users can get a free one-day trial pass, and if they register within a month, the first month is free.
bench craft companySigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
Good morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
Read our Xbox 360 news of GAME selling XBLA games and DLC.
bench craft company Subscription Porn Site SLAPPed Down After Suing RedTube For Undermining Its Business Model
from the competing-isn't-undermining dept
We've joked in the past about how many of the complaints we see from companies about new, more innovative competitors, is that they somehow represent "felony interference of a business model." Some companies, it seems, like to believe that if they have a successful business model, any new competitor that changes the market around must be doing so illegally. Eric Goldman points us to just such a lawsuit in California, where the proprietor of a subscription based porn website sued RedTube, one of many, many porn-focused free streaming video sites, and many of RedTube's advertisers, arguing unfair competition. Basically, the argument was that by setting up a website and offering these porn videos for free, while making money on the advertising, RedTube was effectively "dumping" its product on the market below cost in order to harm the market and make money elsewhere.
RedTube, in response, filed an anti-SLAPP claim, saying that the lawsuit sought to silence RedTube exercising its First Amendment rights of speech. While a lower court mostly agreed, it did leave open one small piece of the unfair competition claim, related to the issue of the claim that someone at RedTube's parent company signed up for the plaintiff's subscription website, downloaded the videos, and posted them on RedTube. However, the California state appeals court rejects the lower court's argument, and agrees that even this claim should be tossed out, because it's only unfair competition if the plaintiff can show that he has, in fact, lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition. Since the plaintiff was unable to do so, the court ruled that this claim got tossed out too (though, if true, you do wonder if there might be a copyright issue -- which does not appear to have been raised here).
On the overall point of underpricing the market unfairly, the court points out how silly this is, noting that giving away free content in exchange for advertising is a business model that's been around for ages, and is hardly a form of unfair competition:
If Bright's business model sounds familiar it's because it's the business model
typical of broadcast radio and television stations in the United States not to mention
thousands of local newspapers and, more recently, tens of thousands of Internet websites
including Youtube, CNN and Video.Yahoo.
The court also points out, in its opening, that business models change, and companies need to keep up -- and they shouldn't expect the law to keep their old business models in place:
In the 21st century, businesses of all kinds are having to adapt to a constantly
changing commercial landscape. The business that the parties describe as the "adult
entertainment" industry is no exception. Websites that originally made their money by
offering such material on a subscription or pay-per-view basis are being replaced by
"tube" websites which offer their content for free and make their money through
advertising.
There's also an interesting discussion over whether or not RedTube qualifies for SLAPP protections, as the site's content must involve the "furtherance of their right of free speech on a public issue." The plaintiff said that his complaint had nothing to do with stopping speech, but from the "anti-competitive conduct." The court notes that even publishing videos of porn online is conduct in the furtherance of speech and, in fact, that there is a "substantial public interest in the kind of sexually explicit videos shown on tube-sites such as Redtube." That's one way to put it.
The final point that seemed worth discussing on this is just how silly some "anti-competitive" behavior laws and rulings can be. Part of the plaintiff's argument here was to bring up a bit of caselaw involving two competing San Fransisco tourist cruises, where one firm got in trouble for selling tickets below cost, even though the firm made it up elsewhere. The court rejects this, by claiming that the earlier ruling doesn't apply here because RedTube "does not sell two separate products." That seems silly to me, and if anything really just highlights the problem with the original court ruling about using the tickets as a loss leader. If you read the ruling this way, you get a nonsensical result: giving away the videos for free would be legal, but charging a penny for them could suddenly be seen as unfair competition, because now it would be "selling" two separate products. Bundling multiple products, such that some are given away free or cheaply in the interest of a larger business model should never be seen as anti-competitive on its own. While I agree with the
outcome, it seemed like this was the most confused part of the court's ruling, in that it tapdanced around what was, basically, a really bad ruling. The real issue should be to get rid of any rule that says such kinds of bundles are against the law in the first place.
12 Comments | Leave a Comment..
The latest to try is Ongo, a two-year-old start-up that will introduce its Web site today, with an iPad app to follow.
Ongo is backed by three major media companies: The Washington Post Company, The New York Times Company and Gannett, which publishes USA Today. Each has invested $4 million.
Ongo is for readers who peruse a variety of publications every day and want to read them all in one place. It shows articles from about 20 publications, and is in talks with dozens more.
The catch: Readers pay $6.99 a month for the service, while most of the Web sites whose articles it shows are free. In exchange, readers see no ads or cluttered pages, and can search for articles, save them and share them with friends — all from one site.
“The key thing is they don’t have to go to the other sites” to read the stories, said Kevin Skaggs, Ongo’s chief content officer and a former producer for The San Francisco Chronicle’s Web site.
Many publications generally flinch at that idea, because they want readers to visit their sites and see their ads. But in this case, they are sharing their content with Ongo because Ongo will share its revenue with them. And, Ongo said, it may attract new readers when its editors highlight stories that readers may not have otherwise seen.
Other apps, like Pulse and Flipboard, offer mobile news readers for free. And people turn to Web sites like The Huffington Post, Twitter and Facebook to see stories aggregated by editors or acquaintances.
Ongo is different because it gathers stories from a large number of publications, people can access it on the Web or on mobile devices, and professional editors choose the top stories, said Alex Kazim, Ongo’s founder and chief executive and a former eBay executive.
“I just don’t think my friends are as good as professional editors in finding stories for me to read,” he said.
For $6.99, readers get all articles from The Washington Post and USA Today and some from The New York Times, the Associated Press and The Financial Times, along with stories from one more publication of their choice. Adding other publications costs an additional fee, between 99 cents and $14 a month, which the publisher sets.
According to Ongo’s research, just 12 percent of people read enough publications online each day that they would want a service like Ongo, Mr. Kazim said. But if it is successful, he hopes to include blogs, magazines and video, making it a one-stop shop for the news.
Ongo looks like a newspaper, with headlines that a team of six editors chooses to highlight and sections like sports, business and opinion. Readers can search a topic in the news and see articles from a variety of publications.
Like other sites, Ongo lets people share articles with friends through e-mail, Facebook and Twitter. But it also lets people set up groups — family members or colleagues, for instance — for sharing, and facilitates chats about articles. If someone who is not an Ongo member signs up after reading a shared story, the sender gets a free month’s membership.
First-time Ongo users can get a free one-day trial pass, and if they register within a month, the first month is free.
bench craft company>
Sigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
Good morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
Read our Xbox 360 news of GAME selling XBLA games and DLC.
bench craft company[reefeed]
bench craft company
bench craft companySigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
Good morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
Read our Xbox 360 news of GAME selling XBLA games and DLC.
bench craft companySubscription Porn Site SLAPPed Down After Suing RedTube For Undermining Its Business Model
from the competing-isn't-undermining dept
We've joked in the past about how many of the complaints we see from companies about new, more innovative competitors, is that they somehow represent "felony interference of a business model." Some companies, it seems, like to believe that if they have a successful business model, any new competitor that changes the market around must be doing so illegally. Eric Goldman points us to just such a lawsuit in California, where the proprietor of a subscription based porn website sued RedTube, one of many, many porn-focused free streaming video sites, and many of RedTube's advertisers, arguing unfair competition. Basically, the argument was that by setting up a website and offering these porn videos for free, while making money on the advertising, RedTube was effectively "dumping" its product on the market below cost in order to harm the market and make money elsewhere.
RedTube, in response, filed an anti-SLAPP claim, saying that the lawsuit sought to silence RedTube exercising its First Amendment rights of speech. While a lower court mostly agreed, it did leave open one small piece of the unfair competition claim, related to the issue of the claim that someone at RedTube's parent company signed up for the plaintiff's subscription website, downloaded the videos, and posted them on RedTube. However, the California state appeals court rejects the lower court's argument, and agrees that even this claim should be tossed out, because it's only unfair competition if the plaintiff can show that he has, in fact, lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition. Since the plaintiff was unable to do so, the court ruled that this claim got tossed out too (though, if true, you do wonder if there might be a copyright issue -- which does not appear to have been raised here).
On the overall point of underpricing the market unfairly, the court points out how silly this is, noting that giving away free content in exchange for advertising is a business model that's been around for ages, and is hardly a form of unfair competition:
If Bright's business model sounds familiar it's because it's the business model
typical of broadcast radio and television stations in the United States not to mention
thousands of local newspapers and, more recently, tens of thousands of Internet websites
including Youtube, CNN and Video.Yahoo.
The court also points out, in its opening, that business models change, and companies need to keep up -- and they shouldn't expect the law to keep their old business models in place:
In the 21st century, businesses of all kinds are having to adapt to a constantly
changing commercial landscape. The business that the parties describe as the "adult
entertainment" industry is no exception. Websites that originally made their money by
offering such material on a subscription or pay-per-view basis are being replaced by
"tube" websites which offer their content for free and make their money through
advertising.
There's also an interesting discussion over whether or not RedTube qualifies for SLAPP protections, as the site's content must involve the "furtherance of their right of free speech on a public issue." The plaintiff said that his complaint had nothing to do with stopping speech, but from the "anti-competitive conduct." The court notes that even publishing videos of porn online is conduct in the furtherance of speech and, in fact, that there is a "substantial public interest in the kind of sexually explicit videos shown on tube-sites such as Redtube." That's one way to put it.
The final point that seemed worth discussing on this is just how silly some "anti-competitive" behavior laws and rulings can be. Part of the plaintiff's argument here was to bring up a bit of caselaw involving two competing San Fransisco tourist cruises, where one firm got in trouble for selling tickets below cost, even though the firm made it up elsewhere. The court rejects this, by claiming that the earlier ruling doesn't apply here because RedTube "does not sell two separate products." That seems silly to me, and if anything really just highlights the problem with the original court ruling about using the tickets as a loss leader. If you read the ruling this way, you get a nonsensical result: giving away the videos for free would be legal, but charging a penny for them could suddenly be seen as unfair competition, because now it would be "selling" two separate products. Bundling multiple products, such that some are given away free or cheaply in the interest of a larger business model should never be seen as anti-competitive on its own. While I agree with the
outcome, it seemed like this was the most confused part of the court's ruling, in that it tapdanced around what was, basically, a really bad ruling. The real issue should be to get rid of any rule that says such kinds of bundles are against the law in the first place.
12 Comments | Leave a Comment..
The latest to try is Ongo, a two-year-old start-up that will introduce its Web site today, with an iPad app to follow.
Ongo is backed by three major media companies: The Washington Post Company, The New York Times Company and Gannett, which publishes USA Today. Each has invested $4 million.
Ongo is for readers who peruse a variety of publications every day and want to read them all in one place. It shows articles from about 20 publications, and is in talks with dozens more.
The catch: Readers pay $6.99 a month for the service, while most of the Web sites whose articles it shows are free. In exchange, readers see no ads or cluttered pages, and can search for articles, save them and share them with friends — all from one site.
“The key thing is they don’t have to go to the other sites” to read the stories, said Kevin Skaggs, Ongo’s chief content officer and a former producer for The San Francisco Chronicle’s Web site.
Many publications generally flinch at that idea, because they want readers to visit their sites and see their ads. But in this case, they are sharing their content with Ongo because Ongo will share its revenue with them. And, Ongo said, it may attract new readers when its editors highlight stories that readers may not have otherwise seen.
Other apps, like Pulse and Flipboard, offer mobile news readers for free. And people turn to Web sites like The Huffington Post, Twitter and Facebook to see stories aggregated by editors or acquaintances.
Ongo is different because it gathers stories from a large number of publications, people can access it on the Web or on mobile devices, and professional editors choose the top stories, said Alex Kazim, Ongo’s founder and chief executive and a former eBay executive.
“I just don’t think my friends are as good as professional editors in finding stories for me to read,” he said.
For $6.99, readers get all articles from The Washington Post and USA Today and some from The New York Times, the Associated Press and The Financial Times, along with stories from one more publication of their choice. Adding other publications costs an additional fee, between 99 cents and $14 a month, which the publisher sets.
According to Ongo’s research, just 12 percent of people read enough publications online each day that they would want a service like Ongo, Mr. Kazim said. But if it is successful, he hopes to include blogs, magazines and video, making it a one-stop shop for the news.
Ongo looks like a newspaper, with headlines that a team of six editors chooses to highlight and sections like sports, business and opinion. Readers can search a topic in the news and see articles from a variety of publications.
Like other sites, Ongo lets people share articles with friends through e-mail, Facebook and Twitter. But it also lets people set up groups — family members or colleagues, for instance — for sharing, and facilitates chats about articles. If someone who is not an Ongo member signs up after reading a shared story, the sender gets a free month’s membership.
First-time Ongo users can get a free one-day trial pass, and if they register within a month, the first month is free.
bench craft company
bench craft companySigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
Good morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
Read our Xbox 360 news of GAME selling XBLA games and DLC.
bench craft company
bench craft companySigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
Good morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
Read our Xbox 360 news of GAME selling XBLA games and DLC.
bench craft companySigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
Good morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
Read our Xbox 360 news of GAME selling XBLA games and DLC.
bench craft companySigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
Good morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
Read our Xbox 360 news of GAME selling XBLA games and DLC.
bench craft company bench craft company bench craft company
bench craft company bench craft companySigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
Good morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
Read our Xbox 360 news of GAME selling XBLA games and DLC.
bench craft company Have you been looking for fast, easy ways to make money online? I will give you 5 things to do, all of which I have personal experience with. Some involve eBay, some don't.
1. One of my favorite things to do to make money online, is the one that I'm doing right now! Write articles for Associated Content! There are a few people out there that make a full time living writing for Associated Content, but it takes tons of work to be able to do that. The best way is start off slow like I did. Write an article or two a day, and work from there. Start off by only writing about the things that you enjoy or know a lot about. Depending on the article, Associated content pays two ways. Depending on subject matter, Associated Content pays you for your article up front. This can be anywhere from $1-10 per article, but the average is about $3-4 per article.
Associated Content also pays you by how many views your article generates. They pay $1.50 per 1,000 page views, and the more views you get, the more money you make based on their clout system. It's not easy to make a living on Associated Content, but it is easy to make an extra $100 a month. That's a cable bill, or an energy bill!
2. When your looking for ways to make money online, you will here about eBay over and over again. This is a good way to get started with making money online. The best way to start with selling things around the house. Look around you right now. Do you see something just sitting around, never being used? Sell it! eBay is free to sign up, but they do charge small fees for listing (unless you start your auction under $0.99,) and they charge a fee when an item sells.
3. Another way to make money online is Amazon's Mechanical Turk. I use Mechanical Turk every day. Literally. Every day! Basically what it is, is companies that have you do tasks like finding businesses locations, or getting product information. It's all extremely easy, and some of them pay pretty well. You can easily make a few hundred bucks a month on mechanical turk, and if you have the dedication, you could probably make a living.
4. Here's another way to make money on eBay. Do you have a thrift store in your town? Why don't you head on down there and pick up a few things. You can make a lot more money than you think by picking up items at your local thrift store and selling them on eBay, but it can be tricky. Like writing articles, start with what you know about. For me, it was electronics. Find something you know is a good price, and you think you could make a few bucks with on eBay. Once you get the flow of things, you'll learn more about more items, and be making more money in no time.
5. This last one is another eBay one, but it's a little more time consuming. Go to the online auction site, auctionzip.com and sign up. This is not like eBay. It's real life, real time auctions that are broadcast online. You can bid on items and then pay with your credit card and have them shipped via UPS. I have made a tremendous amount of money doing this. I've bought items for $25 that have sold in the hundreds.
These 5 things are all great ways to make money online. I actively do all of these 5 things, and make a decent amount of money. However, I also keep my day job, and so should you! Hope you enjoyed this article, and hopefully you can start making some money online!
