WebiMax Review, SEO Scam, Fake Ranking, Fake Reviews Internet

WebiMax Review

WebiMax is obviously nothing more than an Internet censorship company, and the tagline they are best known for is "No experience, lack of integrity, no results." according to a Washington Post article by the Founder and CEO of WebiMax, Kenneth Wisnefski. In this post Ken Wisnefski states the following:

"Since its inception, the Internet itself has remained free of international censorship and government oversight. However, cybersecurity is an issue that continues to create controversy, as some believe that a truly secure Internet may only be possible by sacrificing user privacy.

Recently, proposed bills such as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) have stalled, largely because of negative backlash by Internet companies and, more importantly, the Obama administration. The intent of those bills was to eliminate piracy of copyrighted material online by allowing the government to block Web sites. President Obama responded by saying that such bills could potentially stifle innovation and damage the integrity of the Web.

But after enduring two online attacks to my companies reputation and databases, Ive come to the conclusion that the protection businesses would get from the legislation is worth sacrificing privacy.

About a year ago, my company WebiMax was attacked by a person who stole our logo, created a mock Web site and misappropriated our tag­line Experience, Integrity, Results. He changed it to: No experience, lack of integrity, no results. He posted commentary about WebiMax that was false and painted a negative image of us."

Does this guy seriously expect to convince anyone with half a brain that this is a good idea? Just because someone made a legitimate criticism of your business does NOT mean we should all have to live in communist China. For someone so worried about their online image this guy has managed to make himself sound like a... (see attached photo for online image of Ken Wisnefski).

Other Reviews of WebiMax on Washington Post

DerekCurrie
5/31/2012 1:56 PM EDT
An irresponsible rant attempting to justify blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL bills all for the sake of idiotic Corporate Oligarchy gaming priorities. This is the country of 'We The People', not 'we the corporate executive loons.' Shame on you and everyone else who've destroyed the concepts of citizen freedom and real capitalism. This is your era, your self-destructive behavior.

revsorg
5/31/2012 3:55 AM EDT
I couldn't believe it when I read this: "Three months later it popped back up on a hosting company in Ireland that works beyond the boundaries of the law" 
 
I realise that Kenneth C. Wisnefski's maps stop somewhere mid atlantic at which point there are dragons and sea monsters, and that in the books he reads the Irish people are leprichauns, but even with these disadvantages they have actually managed to cobble together a legal system, of sorts. Obviously not one that matches the brilliance and fairness of the American legal system, but nonetheless, one that might be a good place to resolve an Irish legal problem.

bhami
5/30/2012 12:52 PM EDT
Apparently Wisnefski has never heard of the First Amendment.

getjiggly5
5/30/2012 11:36 AM EDT
QUOTE: "A few years ago, someone hacked into the database at my first venture, VendorSeek.com. They were able to access back-end data, including credit card information. Luckily, we caught it before too much damage was done, but authorities never found out who was responsible." 
 
What does CISPA and PIPA even have to do with this happening? They wouldn't cover this type of system breach and maybe Kenneth Wsnefski should have encrypted their customer data like any responsible vendor should (but many don't). You might also want to look into a getting a competent IT department. 
 
As far as the "character attack", as far as I know paradoy is still protected speech in the United States and there are cases of "X Sucks" websites winning the right to exist in court.

delafield
5/29/2012 12:24 PM EDT
First, Mr. Wisnefski, it is not "misappropriation" (your word) of your tagline to change it from "experience, integrity, results" to no experience, lack of integrity, no results. That is called legitimate criticism of your business.  
 
Second, this commentary by Kenneth Wisnefski is a great example of why SOPA should NOT have been passed. WebiMax used the court system to stifle online criticism of its business. It sounds like the Defendant (who created the fake WebiMak site) had a reasonably strong defense: because the defendant changed the WebiMax tagline, he could have argued that there was no trademark infringement. That is, an ordinary consumer would not actually believe that the fake website was WebiMax. Rather, a consumer would understand that the fake website was a spoof intended to criticize WebiMax *because* of the fake tagline. Thus, no trademark infringement (not every use of a trademark is infringement). Any material copied from WebiMax would clearly be fair use, used for criticism of WebiMax, and not copyright infringement. It sounds like the defendant (the creator of the fake website) did not bother showing up to court, which is probably why the court ordered the Preliminary Injunction. (Mr. Wisnefski, did the defendant show up?) The defendant likely did not show up because (1) he knew he could change to a foreign web host; (2) it would be expensive; and (3) it may have eliminated his anonymous status (if he had any).  
 
Certainly the creator of the web site has a first amendment right to create a fake web site, criticize WebiMax, and even use the WebiMax logo and content - in some circumstances (e.g., parody, criticism, etc.).  
 
The supporters of SOPA argued that SOPA would only be used in the "worst of the worst" cases where American intellectual property was being ripped off, resulting in lost american jobs. Protecting the reputation of WebiMax is not one of those "worst of the worst" cases. Instead, from the evidence that Wisnefski provided in this article, SOPA would have allowed WebiMax to stifle free speech. And the owners of "foreign web sites" (that SOPA targeted) are very likely not to show up in US court because of the added expense (which would have resulted in unnecessarily blocked websites). Thus, SOPA would give businesses a big tool to stifle criticism - exactly what Mr. Wisnefski apparently wanted to use it for. 
 
Regarding CISPA, it seems that VendorSeek.com was able to stop the attack on its systems with minimal loss. Way to go VensorSeek! Way to implement good security! So, why is this a reason to destroy our privacy and permit government intrusion on a scale never seen before?

Copywrong
5/30/2012 11:26 AM EDT
Exactly, the use of Webimax's mark as described in this article is not considered an infringing use. It is used to parady the owner and provide a critique of thier business. This is a classic fair use example (no copyright violations) and is not a trademark violation. Regardless of how inappropriate the owner of the mark believed the commentary was, these "suck" webpages have been ruled legal under the first ammendment numerous times.

edwardnorton54
5/28/2012 12:18 PM EDT
Putting your faith in the government is like handing your gun to a murderer. There are thousands of examples to throw out, but how about a recent and big one: TSA. How as the TSA (budget of over 10 billion dollars annually) protected ANY American choosing to travel by air? How many FBI agents (or just Citizens) have smuggled through any number of weapons to "test" the Agency, point out how poorly it failed but nothing changes? You hand the Internet to the US Government and your online business will sputter out within 2-3 years- they will snuff out traffic, bandwidth, break the connections to customers you might have, etc.- whatever they can do to meet the larger agenda that's been in progress since the murder of JFK. You don't count and haven't for years. So stop HANDING this scum of a government the livelihood and Rights we cherish so that YOU can "feel safe".