GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

Badabing · 10-29-2003, 04:46 PM

I've been reading & following the links from this thread and I'm still unclear about Acacia's view regarding affiliate webmasters. Here is my confusion... (sorry for the lengthy post):

If I have a free website without a/v content that links to a sponsor who provides a/v content, must I get an affiliate license with Acacia if that sponsor has a license with Acacia?

Must I get an affiliate license with Acacia if the sponsor I link to does not have a license with Acacia?

I know these are questions that should be asked of Acacia (and I will), but I am not clear based upon information at their website and statements made by Mr. Berman in his YNOT interviews. Was wondering what others think...not about the legality of Acacia's claims, but their interpretation of Acacia's expectations for free site affiliate webmasters who do not have a/v content on their sites.

In his 09/04/03 YNOT interview Rob Berman says:

?Affiliate programs provide access to sites that are most often owned by the affiliate, and in some cases, third parties. The affiliate company is either a direct infringer of our DMT patents (if they own the affiliate site) or an inducing infringer (if the affiliate site is owned by a third party). In either case, the liability for patent infringement is the same. Our affiliate license covers sites that are part of the affiliate program and the royalty is based upon subscription revenue for those sites. ?

The Acacia website says :

"Our license for Affiliate Program operators covers audio/video content that is accessed via web sites that are part of the Affiliate Program. The royalty is based upon subscription revenues from the Affiliate Program web sites."

However, it doesn't specify any details about the affiliate license (though it does give particulars and has links to the webmaster & content licenses.)

In his 10/04/03 YNOT interview Rob Berman seems to say that affiliate webmasters don't need to be licensed if their sites don't actually contain a/v content:

"YNOT NEWS: As far as affiliate Webmasters are concerned, what if a free adult site uses video that is hosted by a sponsor company? Does the sponsor company need a patent to cover themselves as well as the free sites that have teaser videos hosted by the sponsors? Is that what you are talking about with your affiliate license?

Rob Berman: Under our current licensing model, free adult entertainment sites that do not have audio / video content and send traffic to affiliate programs do not need a license from Acacia. Even though these sites are potentially liable as indirect infringers (for sending users to sites that stream audio / video content using our patented process), we are licensing the owners of the affiliate programs for these infringing activities. "

I interpret his first sentence to mean that if I'm an affiliate webmaster of a free site, don't have any a/v content, but link to a sponsor that does have a/v content, then I don't need a license.

The confusing part to me is the second sentence, because he seems to tie in the condition that the sponsor is licensed ("we are licensing the owners of the affiliate programs for these infringing activities. "). And even though the affiliate webmaster may be an indirect infringer Acacia is going to ignore that potential liability (out of the good graces of their hearts...sorry...couldn't resist).

What if my sponsor doesn't have a license? I'm not clear what their expectations are in that case.

10-29-2003, 04:46 PM
Badabing Registered User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 9	I've been reading & following the links from this thread and I'm still unclear about Acacia's view regarding affiliate webmasters. Here is my confusion... (sorry for the lengthy post): If I have a free website without a/v content that links to a sponsor who provides a/v content, must I get an affiliate license with Acacia if that sponsor has a license with Acacia? Must I get an affiliate license with Acacia if the sponsor I link to does not have a license with Acacia? I know these are questions that should be asked of Acacia (and I will), but I am not clear based upon information at their website and statements made by Mr. Berman in his YNOT interviews. Was wondering what others think...not about the legality of Acacia's claims, but their interpretation of Acacia's expectations for free site affiliate webmasters who do not have a/v content on their sites. In his 09/04/03 YNOT interview Rob Berman says: ?Affiliate programs provide access to sites that are most often owned by the affiliate, and in some cases, third parties. The affiliate company is either a direct infringer of our DMT patents (if they own the affiliate site) or an inducing infringer (if the affiliate site is owned by a third party). In either case, the liability for patent infringement is the same. Our affiliate license covers sites that are part of the affiliate program and the royalty is based upon subscription revenue for those sites. ? The Acacia website says : "Our license for Affiliate Program operators covers audio/video content that is accessed via web sites that are part of the Affiliate Program. The royalty is based upon subscription revenues from the Affiliate Program web sites." However, it doesn't specify any details about the affiliate license (though it does give particulars and has links to the webmaster & content licenses.) In his 10/04/03 YNOT interview Rob Berman seems to say that affiliate webmasters don't need to be licensed if their sites don't actually contain a/v content: "YNOT NEWS: As far as affiliate Webmasters are concerned, what if a free adult site uses video that is hosted by a sponsor company? Does the sponsor company need a patent to cover themselves as well as the free sites that have teaser videos hosted by the sponsors? Is that what you are talking about with your affiliate license? Rob Berman: Under our current licensing model, free adult entertainment sites that do not have audio / video content and send traffic to affiliate programs do not need a license from Acacia. Even though these sites are potentially liable as indirect infringers (for sending users to sites that stream audio / video content using our patented process), we are licensing the owners of the affiliate programs for these infringing activities. " I interpret his first sentence to mean that if I'm an affiliate webmaster of a free site, don't have any a/v content, but link to a sponsor that does have a/v content, then I don't need a license. The confusing part to me is the second sentence, because he seems to tie in the condition that the sponsor is licensed ("we are licensing the owners of the affiliate programs for these infringing activities. "). And even though the affiliate webmaster may be an indirect infringer Acacia is going to ignore that potential liability (out of the good graces of their hearts...sorry...couldn't resist). What if my sponsor doesn't have a license? I'm not clear what their expectations are in that case.