Weekly visits? Recurring visits? One-time visits? All of the above? Probably potential revenue it would generate if you would plaster the site with pop-up ads and other retarded Protip, no one would buy this heap of The current bought it for cheap. I bet it doesn't take into account the fact that since this site has next to no censorship and is incredibly lax when it comes to being politically correct next to no advertisers want anything to deal with it meanwhile the majority of the demographic that DOES frequent this site use like Ad-blocker and would be reluctant to shell out 5 dollars towards it if their mother's lives depended on it.
It's probably just seeing there's a lot of traffic and a lot of saved to it and using it's robot eyes to add up an estimate after observing the most obvious traits immediately available from a cursory glance. We were unable to obtain comment from Walker. In May , FunnyJunk's owner worked with Charles Carreon to get his site's legal situation in order. Carreon quickly registered as the site's DMCA agent for copyright claims a requirement for any user-generated content site that wants "safe harbor" for prosecution over infringing material its user may upload".
The trademark filling notes that the FunnyJunk name had been "first used in commerce" all the way back on December 1, It describes the site as "an on-line community website featuring a forum where users can post, comment on, and cast votes of approval or disapproval for pictures, photographs, cartoons, stories and videos, and participate in a ranking system in which users are ranked according to the number of favorable votes their postings receive.
The trademark application also introduced a new company location in Bridgeport, Connecticut, with the same address as Bongo International. Bongo helps businesses "overcome the challenges associated with International Cross Border eCommerce transactions. Still, despite the mass of data, none of this company information actually linked back to a specific person behind the site.
Who and where was FunnyJunk's owner, really? Site users have long made a game of figuring out their admin's identity, and he would routinely promise in comment threads to tell someone his first name as a kind of reward. But in general, commenting about the actions of "admin" wasn't taken well.
As the recent controversy with The Oatmeal erupted and FunnyJunk users began writing hundreds of posts about the site's owner and his actions, he set up a sitewide word filter that altered every use of his username "admin" to the phrase "Do you even lift? The owner's name, though, was no longer a secret.
At some point in late , it was just sitting there on the Web, if you knew where to look. Nevada Secretary of State business records require companies to supply a list of officers, which are publicly available —and so, eventually, FunnyJunk LLC had to name names.
It was starting to sound like FunnyJunk really was a one-man operation based now in New York City, with no office, no listed phone, and no interest in talking to the press. We weren't the only ones interested in the story of the man behind the site. Writing on the meme wiki Encyclopedia Dramatica earlier this year, an anonymous user called "SuperIrene" added text to the FunnyJunk page, including "some interesting facts about admin IRL [in real life].
Quite recently, Admin and his internet-lawyer decided to register FunnyJunk, LLC in the glorious state of Nevada and conveniently decided to leave the list of financial officers empty until about two weeks after the deadline for submission. After submitting the officer list, Admin pretty much doxed himself not that anyone actually cares. As of now, Admin is 27 years old. No sources were provided for these statements, but searching through the FunnyJunk forums turned up plenty of posts making the same points by one "mightyirene"—apparently the same person—who claims to have met the admin in New York.
The posts have been deleted, but Google's cache sees all, remembers all. I don't know where he actually lives house and street but it's in the same neighborhood. I'm not a stalker or anything, it's just that I was curious.
Family members work for him, dutifully shipping his wares to dolphin haters across the globe. Is that revenue figure feasible? That's 1, products per month, or 51 products every day. Given a reader base of about 7m, he only needs convert 0. Not everyone is so successful, however.
Most web comic creators are hobbyists, says David Malki, spokesperson for Topatoco , a company that helps to create and sell merchandise for web comic creators. Rock stars like Inman are far rarer. Advertising generally makes a smaller percentage of revenues for web comic creators. Project Wonderful is an advertising network that sells advertising to 76, advertisers. They bid to be placed on any one of the 4, web comic sites that it works with; content owners are paid on a per-day basis.
Web comic authors seem to be mostly laid back when it comes to pirated works. Even Inman let FunnyJunk's use of his content lie, until the lawsuit threat arrived. He says he even sometimes ignores people merchandising his ideas. Most of the time I let it fly," he says. However, Inman who has a background in search engine optimisation does get irked when sites host copies of his work without any backlinks to his website, and with copyright notices specifically removed.
It's bad because aggregators end up getting paid for the work of artists," says Weinersmith. If those views had been on my site, I might have reaped a hundred or more dollars over time from the initial traffic bump and new readers. This legislation, which was effectively abandoned in January, would have allowed copyright holders to force search engines and payment processors to stop supporting sites that allegedly breached copyright.
But he doesn't like the way that Sopa would have put the onus on sites to prove their innocence, and he joined a global day of action against the legislation in January. Traditionally, sites that rely on their readers to post images can claim innocence under Section c of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This "safe harbour" provision protects them from being sued for money if they take down the material "expeditiously" when asked.
0コメント