|
From today's XBiz article/interview with Acacia:
Quote:
Is there any legal basis in this seemingly smouldering pile of bull shit? (Seriously, would like an answer if anyone has one.) Or do they just make this up as they go along? As far as I know, linking to something that links to something that links to something was thrown out in a variety of court cases years ago. Otherwise the Web would cease to exist as that is what it does. And the courts (of multiple countries) recognized this. Last edited by Dravyk at Oct 28 2003, 08:41 PM |
This is pretty funny stuff.....
Maybe they should go after the consumers who watch the video as well. |
They are simply attempting to get the Webmaster to put pressure on Sponsors to 'settle' so that the webmaster is 'safe' from 'infringement'...
... divide and conquer... :headwall: |
Considering the sailor's vocabulary I have at my disposal, it really means something when I say...
I have no words right now to express the level of disgust I feel for both Acacia and their agenda. |
Quote:
What about for those who settled early??? :ph34r: |
i'm still not sure how i feel about those who have settled.
|
Quote:
We are all waiting on pins and needles for you to figure out how you feel!! :zoinks: |
Quote:
We are all waiting on pins and needles for you to figure out how you feel!! :zoinks:[/b][/quote] Damn you Mike! Wasn't expecting that... Who wants to buy a slightly damp keyboard??? :wnw: |
mike just wants to add some spice to the gumbo to counteract the recent gfy migration.
|
I got the letter 2 times
never said what domain i called spoke to a dude he said um, hmm, took a few minutes and said on callicox.com you hae, "watch calli's movies" thats a link and they can bag me for it fuck him |
Quote:
Quote:
|
They are simply trying to frighten as many people as possible in the hope of picking up some money. If the patent was worth a damn they would be pushing to get it into court.
They will extort as much non returnable license fees as they can, drag it out for as long as possible, then when the courts throw it out they will be $25,000,000 richer. Sound crazy? Wel that was what happened with V-Chip. If more people asked Berman for Spike phone number he might get the message. YOU PICKED ON THE WRONG BUSINESS ARSEHOLE. |
Yep ... this might be a board I can learn from.
It just might be a little more intellectual then GFY ... [quietly reading] |
Quote:
Notice, if a court suit overturns things with the sponsors and the video streaming folks, they do not get their money back. Notice in Berman's article, he says webmasters will not be liable if they sign and then the sponsor they use sign. You don't see him say he'll then give webmasters back the money. He won't. They won't. They have zero intention of giving anything back no matter what way things come out. They are going to do exactly what you said, make as much as they can get and when they lose and out, they're ahead. of the game. The three big companies who settled on the V-Chip and then it was overturned feel stupid as shit now and their money is gone and in Acacia's pocket and being used to fuel their intimidation fire. One thing I disagree on, Paul. No one should phone them. That's tantamount to answering a spam email or opting out of spam only to get more of it. You're only admitting you got the letter, that they got it correct and (depending on where they got the info from to mail you) if they didn't have your phone number before, you've just given it to them (or, again, confirmed it for them.) |
Quote:
if you THINK about linking to streaming media, you'll get a packet spaz |
lol @ Spaz
Maybe we should all build mainstream sites and link to a bunch of the Real One sites and glorify all the streaming video you can get there... and then bring our sites to Acacia's attention. When you get a letter, call up Real Networks and let them know you're being accused of infringing for trying to help their company... (Yeah I know, never mind. I just woke up.) |
Quote:
That is also what this same team did with Gemstar, but they took it into the billions across 10 years..... |
Quote:
|
They are completely reaching. Out of the thousands of sites they attempted to license that ACTUALLY USE VIDEO, they got about 50 to sign and were all sweetheart deals.
Now they are so hard up, they have to blanket spam a bunch of webmasters that dont even use video. To send that blindly out to thousands of people that dont even use video, some of which dont even have a website, is some type of fraud imo. Also, that would pretty much be impossible to account for, getting a percent of money made from sponsors that havent signed a license. Me personally, when I do a deposit, I dont keep track of what every check is. If I make a $1,500 deposit, I enter it in quicken as income/affiliate programs. I dont mark down what each individual check is from. That takes too long, and with all the different corporate shells these companies use its hard to keep track of. And they think they are going to spend hours of time going thru webmasters books that make less than 75k. It would be a total waste of time for them. Last edited by benc at Oct 29 2003, 04:47 AM |
Quote:
If their patent was rock solid they would not be going after a few stranglers in the porn industry! They would be going after major media operations and other companies. Time Warner, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo. What shows their hand to me is that in an eagerness to get good press ( to pump up stock??) they made deals with the top porn companies in the business ( not just only business). By making aweetheart deals with companies like Hustler and Vivid they passed up millions of $$$s, and seek to make it up by going after individual webmasters.... many who don't have 2 nickles to run together. The strategy makes NO sense, unless you are looking to raise money through stock valuation..... OF course this is all my opinion..... I could be wrong! :D |
|
This redundant post edited because Pedo D@d got trigger happy.
Last edited by gonzo at Oct 29 2003, 01:24 PM |
So Webmaster "A" license content (Content Contract) to Webmaster "B" which then sells content to the website visitor (End User Contract) ...sure looks like "double dipping" to me.
|
Hey assfuckdad...(you like that better than pedo ?)... Did you not see the line right before your highlights...."For example, and by way of example only" ??
Both of those reference the preceding paragraph for what the rights granted by the license are..... Learn to read............ :headwall: :headwall: Gonzo...good pull......... |
Psssss .....
Actually it is a triple dip Lets say I lease plug in video feeds for my paysites Acacia wants license fees from the Lease Plug In Video Content providing company Also wants license fees from my company for linking to Lease Plug In Video Content And then wants license fees from any and all websites that link to my paysites Here's the topper - Acacia also wants fees from content provider companies if they have samples of the video they sell on their site |
Quote:
LEARN TO READ ... They are TWO DIFFERENT CONTRACTS ... I pose the question in reference to the Acacia topic thread, that having two different contracts is "double dipping" IMO. Bow to the power of a Master Blogger. |
Quote:
never thought of that angle ... It's mass confusion ... and they also have an "AVN" contract ... brb ... gone to find the link |
Quote:
|
Yeppers Vick, quadruple-dipping is a very likely scenario considering the way this industry is structured and the wide use of plug-ins.
But ya know Berman got on the D$ show and promised they wouldn't double-dip, much less triple-dip... and we see now how good *that* promise was. (Edited to show who exactly I was speaking to and that it was not SE.) Last edited by Carrie at Oct 29 2003, 01:59 PM |
Quote:
|
PINNED
Hey - ding dong Moderator ... Why are you deleting the proof of two different contracts as posted on the ACACIA website of double dipping? |
Guys we are sending a double message here. In one thread we're telling Grogan that he's a low-life piece of shit because he did a one-liner accusing someone of CP and how that can ruin people's businesses and cause others not to speak to the accused again; while here we sit constantly replying to both an accused and a proven CP webmaster as if he should not be shunned. Speaking to him with nicknames like "assclown" is STILL speaking to him and acknowledging his existence.
We are showing folks like Grogan that accusing someone of CP really has no effect whatsoever to the accused and therefore isn't such a big deal after all to accuse someone of it; it's prime "joke" material. Last edited by Carrie at Oct 29 2003, 01:58 PM |
Quote:
I got tired of editing your spam. The delete key is faster. Thanks for letting me practice with all of my new toys. |
Quote:
Look what happened to Jeffery Dahlmer. |
Quote:
I got tired of editing your spam. The delete key is faster. Thanks for letting me practice with all of my new toys.[/b][/quote] Answer the question ... or delete ALL my posts and ban me... Why did you edit onE post and then delete another of the proof of two different contracts as posted on the Acacia website of double dipping? |
Quote:
or delete ALL my posts and ban me... Why did you edit onE post and then delete another of the proof of two different contracts as posted on the Acacia website of double dipping?[/b][/quote] Your in little of a postion to be making demands around here.... you might try double dicking your ice cream cone at tle local jail though. |
See "SexEducation.com Pinn's Serge's Entire Joke Board"
on well ... I think you can guess ... roflmao |
Quote:
Haloween must be your most favoritest of all times....theyactually come up and ring your doorbell and ask you for candy. Last edited by gonzo at Oct 29 2003, 02:13 PM |
ANSWER THE QUESTION ...
OR DELETE ALL MY POSTS AND BAN ME ... PRETTY FN CLEAR - ISN'T IT? |
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
Bow to the power of a Master Blogger. |
Quote:
All your tootsie roll are us. |
Quote:
Admit your mistake ... or bow to the power of a Master Blogger. |
Quote:
or bow to the power of a Master Blogger.[/b][/quote] Did someone give you a free Blog? I gots one too! All your tootsie Roll are us! Opps gotta run I hear the kiddies chasing an Ice Cream Truck....its Halloween and so much to do... |
Gonzo,
Halloween isnt till friday. :hic: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
:kapow: |
Just out of curiousity, for my personal knowledge, what would be the difference between any affiliate and an affiliate program vs. a client and a content provider?
What I mean by this is...and if I am understanding it correctly...is that they are saying any affiliate (webmaster of said affiliate program) that sends traffic only to an affiliate program that has paid fees for the usage of such "patent" is not liable for any fees or can not be held accountable for any infringement. Now with this said, what would be the difference if a client (purchaser of said leased products) that purchases only from a content provider that has paid fees for the usage of such "patent". Why would the client be liable? It is the same situation as an affiliate right? Thoughts? Ideas? *By the way, I don't own any sites so sending me a letter won't accomplish anything. Oh wait...to late;) Last edited by Tonda_WEGCash at Oct 29 2003, 05:30 PM |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:41 PM.. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Evil Empire Inc. 2006-2022