Sunbeltblog comments
Worth noting that I've altered the article slightly as I've since discovered the reason this particular flamefest kicked off. So its gone from a pile of speculative links to something more solid. Ta!
Confusing as this may seem, it actually all makes sense once you understand the plan, its execution, and how its perpetrators profit. In short: Just as I described in my summer 2004 piece and again in September 2005, 180 and its advertisers are engaged in a scheme that substantially harms the honest, rule-following affiliates of targeted merchants.
The basic practice: 1) Get 180's advertising software onto users' PCs. 2) Wait for users to visit affiliate merchants. 3) When they do, pop up windows of those merchants' sites, as reached through affiliate links. Whose affiliate links? Either 180's own links, or links of 180's advertisers.
Either way: The net effects are just as set out in my summer 2004 article: 1) The merchant pays out affiliate commissions on (what should have been) its organic traffic -- costing the merchant money. 2) The merchant credits 180 and its advertisers with commissions that should have gone to other, rule-following affiliates *who actually referred the users to the merchants at issue*.
Contrary to Zango's blog, this is not about cookies. It's about commission-stealing -- about commission-stealing for which 180's software performs a crucial enabling role, but to which 180 has chosen to turn a blind eye. So, Alex, I don't think you're right to say Zango is under attack "for cookies." Rather, they're under attack for a scheme that, by overwriting cookies, reduces the compensation that legitimate rule-following affiliates receive. And, in my view, they are rightly criticized for these practices.
References:
My first and main article about 180's commission-stealing systems
Example showing Apple targeted by 180 (many more specific, clear, well-documented examples are linked from this page)
September 2005 article with additional examples of commission-stealing, including revenue diagrams and additional discussion
Stealing commissions earned by rule-following players, eh?
I wish, in a case like this, proving a company is doing this would lead to the company's dissolution, its owners/leaders not allowed to start another company for two years, and the proceeds going to a random charity (since it would be almost impossible to prove who and how many were gypped of their rightful commission). Not just a fine (aka slap on the wrist). Hit them where it hurts - in the pocketbook - and maybe, just maybe, these jerks would stop their crap.
But that's my opinion. 
Commenting by HaloScan
