Jamster/Ringtoneking scam
- Thread starter DrMoriarty
- Start date
T
tonka
Guest
Eircom do not charge you for blocking 15xxx numbers like I said, it costs €0 to set up and €0 per month. I have blocked them for years from home.ronan_d_john said:
As the child is a minor they cannot enter into a legal contract (which is what this subscription is); once you mention this fact to Jamster and their ilk you will get a refund.
I've sucessfully retrieved €70 from this gang for my own daughter, who was 15 at the time and frankly should have known better.
Interestingly enough, the refund was sent back to me in cash!
I've sucessfully retrieved €70 from this gang for my own daughter, who was 15 at the time and frankly should have known better.
Interestingly enough, the refund was sent back to me in cash!
icantbelieve
Registered User
- Messages
- 131
To me these ringtones really are a scam but I can kind of see the attraction to kids but who in their right mind young or old subscribes to the "horoscope", "love poetry", "text your and your lovers name to find out your suitability" etc.
And yet presumably someone does because a) the operators pay to advertise these things and b) there are loads of the bloody things.
You have to feel that Mr Hannum underestimated when he said that "there's one born every minute", in fact search result number 8 when I plugged this into google.ie came back very apropos
And yet presumably someone does because a) the operators pay to advertise these things and b) there are loads of the bloody things.
You have to feel that Mr Hannum underestimated when he said that "there's one born every minute", in fact search result number 8 when I plugged this into google.ie came back very apropos
D
daltonr
Guest
icantbelieve
Registered User
- Messages
- 131
Having thought a bit further on the "won't pay 1 euro for the song but will pay 2-3 euros for a 10 second clip" I checked and there is loads of software out there (shareware, freeware etc..) that will convert mp3's into ringtones for your phone, even if you had to spend 20 euros on a licenced package it'd pay for itself in no time. Your kids would have the added benefit of being able to be truly unique by choosing which part of the song the use. As for legality, well if you pay for the song then as with burning cd's for your own use or put songs on mp3 players then putting a section of the song on your phone should also be within copy right.
Can you imagine if this caught on, the airways would be free from all those annoying ringtone ads and companies like jamster would go bust.
Can you imagine if this caught on, the airways would be free from all those annoying ringtone ads and companies like jamster would go bust.
icantbelieve said:
The new motorola 3G phones provide this software and a data cable as standard out of the box.
Here's a question though.
If you're covered on copyright, which I don't doubt, do you think that IRMA might try to get you for sharing/broadcasting???
MonsieurBond
Registered User
- Messages
- 819
ronan_d_john said:
With the Sony Ericsson V800, you can just copy MP3 tunes directly onto the phone or memory card (the phone memory is better for this purpose).
Well, more or less - you have to create a Digital Rights Managament DRM file first, but there is a free tool to do this available on the Sony Ericsson Developer Site. The idea is that if you own the CD, you can rip it to an MP3 ringtone and put the tone onto the phone. Granted, it doesn't allow you to edit the file but other tools do that.
It's not just kids who got caught out by this. There was an article in the Sunday Times by one of their journalists who got hit by this. All he wanted was to buy the ringtone. He did it on the basis of a TV ad. The details that this would subscribe him to their "service" with charge back SMS's was in tiny print scrolling across at the bottom of the screen, where it wouldn't be noticed. He's established that the way the terms and conditions are displayed don't meet the legal requirements.
D
daltonr
Guest
Why do Charge Back SMSs even exist.
I can think of no legitimate use for them.
Even if you accept that an informed consumer should be able to pay
€2 for a ring tone, why not allow Jamster to send you a txt message
to which you must reply in order to be charged.
I'm sure the phone operators make money by allowing companies like
Jamster to exist, but they'll end up creating more distrust of the technology
than if they adopted a more restrictive policy by only allowing you to be charged for Calls & Txts that you originate.
-Rd
I can think of no legitimate use for them.
Even if you accept that an informed consumer should be able to pay
€2 for a ring tone, why not allow Jamster to send you a txt message
to which you must reply in order to be charged.
I'm sure the phone operators make money by allowing companies like
Jamster to exist, but they'll end up creating more distrust of the technology
than if they adopted a more restrictive policy by only allowing you to be charged for Calls & Txts that you originate.
-Rd
Got the following text this am:
' Get ur FREE poly TODAY!! Reply X1 for CrazyFrog, X2 for Amarillo, X3 for U2 Beautiful Day. From Thursday get 4 polys/week/2Eur. SP:Juicy 01 2186831 16+ Stop'
I can't understand a word of it. How could a 9 year old? Does it mean if you get your free 'poly' you are automatically charged 2Eur per week thereafter? I doubt my mobile would even be able to play one of these things- a poly is a ring tone, right? Its old and has never been asked to do anything other than make and receive calls. Mr.V is constantly at me to upgrade, but I just can't be bothered.
' Get ur FREE poly TODAY!! Reply X1 for CrazyFrog, X2 for Amarillo, X3 for U2 Beautiful Day. From Thursday get 4 polys/week/2Eur. SP:Juicy 01 2186831 16+ Stop'
I can't understand a word of it. How could a 9 year old? Does it mean if you get your free 'poly' you are automatically charged 2Eur per week thereafter? I doubt my mobile would even be able to play one of these things- a poly is a ring tone, right? Its old and has never been asked to do anything other than make and receive calls. Mr.V is constantly at me to upgrade, but I just can't be bothered.
daltonr said:
I'm sorry daltonr, but that's like saying that the production and availablility of porn movies is going to be responsible for people starting to have a sense of unease in using DVD players.
If you don't want to avail of services such as Jamster, then you have no reason to worry that such things are out there and available.
DrMoriarty
Moderator
- Messages
- 5,173
Vanilla, I'd check your bill pretty quickly if I was you. Jamster/Ringtoneking were supposed to charge you €4/week, but the OCDA experiment linked to above shows that double-charging seems to be commonplace.
I was intrigued by the 01 number provided, and it. Nice list of 'reputable' advertisers there...!
Looks like these are your crowd: http://www.puca.ie/
[Edit: Ronan D, I'm beginning to suspect you work for or have some other association with one of these outfits...?
If these companies' operations are as legitimate and respectable as you seem to believe, then tell us where Púca's Terms & Conditions are available here, for example.]
I was intrigued by the 01 number provided, and it. Nice list of 'reputable' advertisers there...!
Looks like these are your crowd: http://www.puca.ie/[Edit: Ronan D, I'm beginning to suspect you work for or have some other association with one of these outfits...?
If these companies' operations are as legitimate and respectable as you seem to believe, then tell us where Púca's Terms & Conditions are available here, for example.]
icantbelieve
Registered User
- Messages
- 131
That is one spurious porn/dvd argument
a) children can't buy porn dvds
b) if you buy one porn dvd you don't then get sent and charged for loads of others unsolicited
it might have a bit more weight if you used porn/sky moive ordering service except that b) still applies and that in order for children to order them they'd still have to have access to their parents account details rather than using their pocket money.
a) children can't buy porn dvds
b) if you buy one porn dvd you don't then get sent and charged for loads of others unsolicited
it might have a bit more weight if you used porn/sky moive ordering service except that b) still applies and that in order for children to order them they'd still have to have access to their parents account details rather than using their pocket money.
T
tonka
Guest
I blame Comreg and Regtel for letting scum mug kids for their pocket money.ronan_d_john said:
I'd simply block all PR texts bar 50nnn and 51nnn by default and allow a full opt in once the mobile phone owner can establish that they are over 18 by producing proper ID in a shop belonging to a mobile operator . If the phone is in contract I would unblock all PR txt number ranges by default.
I see no prob with that admin system given how much the operators themselves make on PR txt .
The operator would be obliged to hand them a leaflet , produced by Regtel and the PRS operators, detailing what is allowed and what is not allowed and how to complain and get reimbursement if they get slammed by chargeback mechanisms or if opt outs mysteriously fail to work. As for chargebacks, I would not allow them except in the lower ranges for stuff like weather forecasts for 30c and the like.
That would flush the premium text scum out fairly sharpish.
icantbelieve said:
My comment was particularly focused on the comment regarding people doubting the technology purely because of the content available on the technology. I was not commenting on anything else from this thread in that particular post.
DrMoriarty said:
No association at all. Merely trying to logically look at the arguments, with a little bit of devils advocate thrown in as well.
While I understand there are concerns from a childrens point of view here, getting overcharged and not understanding etc., my main interest in this thread is the over-reaction by some parties to a situation over which they themselves have control.
Bringing in legislation, rules or whatever, to control something that people can simply control themselves is an over-reaction of the highest order, and is indicative of the way in which many people are actually encouraging a nanny state by their reactions to such issues.
e.g.
Complaint - my kid is getting ripped off after the subscribed to a jamster ringtone service.
Solution 1 - don't give your kid a phone until they're old enough to understand the consequences of using it.
Solution 2 - if you are giving them a phone, sit them down (being a parent and all) and teach them the ins and outs of using the phone. Let them know what it can be used for, and what it can't or shouldn't be used for. They're your damn kids - if they still go off and subscribe to such a service, see Solution 4.
Solution 3 - block their phone from sending and receiving premium SMS and MMS messages.
Solution 4 - cancel the subscription, and show them that that's a lesson learned on not spending money until the understand what they're spending their money on. Take the phone off them for a while if necessary.
Why, oh why, don't parents take such matters into their own hands and sort their kids out instead of crying out for others to protect them and their kids from the big bad world??
DrMoriarty said:
To my knowledge, Puca, in this particular advertising according to the Regtel Code of Practice, have done everything necessary in order to follow the Code. They have given contact details and clearly shown the price. They are not obliged to do any more.
Finally, to provide balance to my views, if people aren't happy with the Code of Practice, Regtel are giving you all an invitation to submit your observations on the Code as it is at the moment, and what you may feel needs to be done in the future.
[broken link removed]
Can I suggest that, for anyone who has either followed steps 1 through 4 and has found that their kids are still disobeying them and subscribing for ringtones, or anyone who can't be bothered, follow up with Regtel to see if they'll protect your kids from getting ripped of better than you can as parents???
DrMoriarty
Moderator
- Messages
- 5,173
Bit late for RegTel submissions...
Jamba GmbH replied on Monday morning and offered a cash refund.
Meteor on Monday afternoon (message copied above)
Comreg, O2 & Vodafone on Tuesday - all three pointing out that this is RegTel's baby.
In fact, the only party I haven't heard a squeak from so far is ...RegTel!
But I was delighted to read this in their [broken link removed]:
Maybe I should e-mail RegTel a link to this thread.
Ronan D, I'm reluctant to engage seriously with your arguments - we clearly inhabit different planets, and I've no desire to change your views on the matter. But pointing to Tonka's slightly emotive use of language doesn't 'exemplify' (prove? support?) your point at all.
Complaint - my kid's lunch money is being scammed off him by a guy playing find-the-lady card tricks in the schoolyard, and the principal won't do anything about it.
Solution 1 - don't give your kid lunch money until he's old enough to recognise a rip-off artist when he sees one?
One last point. The Púca ad I linked to above absolutely does not 'clearly show the price'...
The email address provided is the one to which I CC'd my complaint to Jamster/Ringtoneking/Jamba last Sunday.
Jamba GmbH replied on Monday morning and offered a cash refund.
Meteor on Monday afternoon (message copied above)
Comreg, O2 & Vodafone on Tuesday - all three pointing out that this is RegTel's baby.
In fact, the only party I haven't heard a squeak from so far is ...RegTel!
But I was delighted to read this in their [broken link removed]:
So - forgive me, but what exactly has changed...?
Maybe I should e-mail RegTel a link to this thread.Ronan D, I'm reluctant to engage seriously with your arguments - we clearly inhabit different planets, and I've no desire to change your views on the matter. But pointing to Tonka's slightly emotive use of language doesn't 'exemplify' (prove? support?) your point at all.
So...
Complaint - my kid's lunch money is being scammed off him by a guy playing find-the-lady card tricks in the schoolyard, and the principal won't do anything about it.
Solution 1 - don't give your kid lunch money until he's old enough to recognise a rip-off artist when he sees one?
One last point. The Púca ad I linked to above absolutely does not 'clearly show the price'...
DrMoriarty
Moderator
- Messages
- 5,173
P.s.
Again from RegTel:
Again from RegTel:
D
daltonr
Guest
Actually it's nothing like that.
There's nothing inherently wrong with kids having mobile phones. If it provides a way to check that they're ok when they're 30 mins late getting home at night, and gives them a way to call home if something happens then it's worth them having it.
if the mobile phone needlessly becomes a mechanism for companies to scam money from kids, let's call a spade a spade, that's what this is. Then parents will choose to not allow their kids to have phones.
I'd have no problem with a kid having a DVD player. If by watching a DVD the kid could end up being charged €2 a week without fully grasping why, then I'd have a problem with the DVD player. It's a features of the DVD player that serves no useful purpose but gives me a headache that can only be eliminated by taking away the technology.
Can you educate kids about ringtone scams? yes, but why should you have to?
The technology serves no useful purpose and will eventually be bundled into a new type of scam and you have to start educating about that one.
Simple solution. Remove the phone.
Phones don't scam people. People scam people. Why on earth we facilitate them with the technology to do it I can't understand.
I'm still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why we need this technology? Or why phones don't come with a default bar on them which can be reversed, possibily by ringing your phone company and confirming that you are over 18.
In order to set up the ability to receive Faxes on my mobile I had to ring Vodafone.
-Rd