Jeremiah Boughton, an executive at ONitAlert, has made a series of serious accusations against IPVM. [UPDATE - this has devolved into a series of personal attacks and vulgarities inside. We have closed the discussion.]
We address each one herein:
Given that we have 2450+ original posts covering a broad and deep range of video surveillance, I suspect most would not think it's a 'crazy claim' to say IPVM is the world's leading video surveillance information source.
Next is an accusation of IPVM misleading on Twitter:
We joined twitter, I believe in 2008 or 2009. Back then, we were IP Video Market Info, so I choose @ipvideo as our twitter handle. At the end of 2011, we switched to ipvm.com but the twitter handle @ipvm was already being used by a Brazilian church.
Next is a claim about IPVM allowing companies to track you:
The two companies are standard web services - one is for visitor statistics (essentially every professional site does this, we use clicky, others use google analytics, etc.). The other, New Relic, is for performance (how fast pages load, how long it takes for each SQL query, etc.) and is also a very common service. Neither services obtains any person's name nor email. Also, this is not done to 'paid members' but tracks all visits whether from humans or bots, etc.
Next point about IPVM and sexism:
If you think a 5 person company is sexist because it has no female employees so be it. We always 'lose money' when doing controversial posts because (1) during the time those posts are featured, people are focusing on those free, public posts and not on our paid content that drives membership sign ups. Plus, we offend powerful people, like yourself, who then criticize us.
Next up, accusations of selling data:
We have never and will never sell (or share member personal information - names, emails, etc.) to anyone else.
Here's an accusation of breaking a law:
Fair Use protects individuals for "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" and is limited to short excerpts. Under fair use, you can share with anyone, 'close colleagues' or 'worst enemies'. However, you cannot take whole works and simply redistribute them. Which leads to the next point:
Putting a document in your own Dropbox folder is perfectly fine, sharing them with other parties is the issues. Dropbox's copyright policy is very clear on this point: "You do not have the right to share files unless you own the copyright in them or have been given permission by the copyright owner to share them. Purchasing or legally acquiring video, music, ebooks, or software does not give you the right to share that material with third parties over the Internet."
I am happy to address any other concerns from Jeremiah or any other member herein.