Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSquealer
To be clear, I didn't say it happened (affiliates being similarly accountable under the law as the primary infringing party). I'm not going to look. Plenty of affiliates have been sued for secondary infringement outside of adult... i am not sure that RICO would meet the tests and apply under any conditions as from what I am reading, its very gray and complicated. Too lazy to look it up or attempt figure it out. However, that does not mean that the plaintiffs can't simply insist its so, make that claim and sue for that amount anyway, leaving you to have to argue and prove otherwise at your own expense. I would guess they can argue that if you participated in any way to benefit the site(s), being the network was saturated with that name, displayed banners with the words/urls, used watermark videos etc etc etc you'd still be liable.
|
Yeah, that falls under anyone can sue anyone for anything. Which is true, but very different from it happened before and this was the result. Carrying that line of thought to its logical conclusion, if a girl wore a Pepsi shirt in a video any affiliate who sent traffic to that site would be liable under RICO... I don't see that happening, even in light of the recent expansion of RICO to go after Silk Road card number buyers.
I don't expect we will ever know the details of this particular domain transaction, and honestly the only way they matter to anyone beyond porn nerd is if there is some kind of affiliate liability. If there isn't, then it's really nothing more than laundromat gossip about what dreamworks may or may not be up to - so whether there is an affiliate component or not really is all that matters, no?