Quote:
Originally Posted by FlexxAeon
No. It's the same thing  "commercially reasonable" is exactly the issue. But no need to explain further.
Look.... Nothing personal. I'm not one of these guys with a vendetta. And I can understand why such a clause would be necessary for a business to have. I'm just really tired of ICM peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining. Leads me to believe that you guys think just because we do adult, we're idiots. And I resemble that remark. |
I do want it to be clear though, so I'm happy to attempt another explanation.
I appreciate that you don't have a vendetta, as I'd like to be a point of communication as opposed to competing to rank in battle of the board warriors.
The clause that you pointed to is specifically about IFFOR. It's IFFOR's council, and the ability for IFFOR's board to make a determination. I added the only time that ICM can exercise what could be interpreted as a veto. You're bothered by the phrase "commercially reasonable." But ICM is a business, that is providing a service. It would make no sense at all NOT to include it, for itself as a for profit business, and as a business providing a service to its customers. It's unreasonable to expect any business to approve a commercial venture that could/ or does eventually prohibit its ability to continue to provide service. One might consider how many programs have folded in this industry because they made a choice to stop paying affiliates when their traffic slowed down. That would probably qualify as "not commercially reasonable" or otherwise known as shooting yourself in the foot.
And given that .xxx *is* and adult venture, it would be silly for us to believe that 'because people do adult, they're idiots.' Yes, you do adult. No - I don't think you're an idiot, and I do thank you for both your candid question and your lack of vendetta.