Two Questions About Acacia - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

WiredGuy

Pounding Googlebot

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 34515
Share

Post
#1

Two Questions About Acacia

10-30-2003, 01:21 PM

I have followed pretty actively the Acacia threads and I hate starting a new thread about this topic but I got some quick questions I couldn't find easily in other threads.

1) Those companies that have agreed to settle, is there a provision included that covers their webmasters? For example, if a webmaster is exclusively promoting a single sponsor that has settled, is that webmaster still liable for patent infringement or is the sponsor/affiliate relationship not covered in the settlement terms.

2) Based on the last round of packages Acacia has sent out, they are pursuing anyone who even links to galleries that promote sponsors with video. If this is the case, wouldn't the exit traffic (and cross-sales) on companies that have settled be considered infringing as well?

WG

I play with Google.
Tags: None
triumph

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 3433
Share

Post
#2

10-30-2003, 01:26 PM

good questions I would like to know also
Comment
fatbaby

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 486
Share

Post
#3

10-30-2003, 01:29 PM

1) IN one of the various articles ( the XBiz one? ) Acacia's head dick said that affiliates are 'safe' if the sponsor they are linking to has caved in to Acacia...

2) They are practicing the old 'throw enough shit at the wall and some of it will stick' with this. The lasest round was not 'packages', simple letters with vague insinuations of infringement....
Comment
FATPad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 6693
Share

Post
#4

10-30-2003, 01:53 PM

2) Based on the latest round of packages Acacia sent out, I'm surprised my grandmother hasn't gotten one because she saw a movie on her digital cable the other day.

The last round of letters was because their 3rd quarter earnings report sucked balls, and nothing else.

<a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>
Comment
WiredGuy

Pounding Googlebot

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 34515
Share

Post
#5

10-31-2003, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by fatbaby
1) IN one of the various articles ( the XBiz one? ) Acacia's head dick said that affiliates are 'safe' if the sponsor they are linking to has caved in to Acacia...

2) They are practicing the old 'throw enough shit at the wall and some of it will stick' with this. The lasest round was not 'packages', simple letters with vague insinuations of infringement....

I don't believe anything that comes out of Acacia's mouth anymore... They also said they won't be double/triple dipping. That was a load of crap...

WG

I play with Google.
Comment
Far-L

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2002

Posts: 6065
Share

Post
#6

10-31-2003, 07:43 AM

After reading the XBIZ piece... one has to wonder what the hell Berman is thinking or doing...

C'mon now!

He says affiliates are protected if their sponsors are licensed... but does he tell you who all the sponsors are that have licensed so that everyone can somehow comply?

NO.

Why?

Something smells...

Like a load of crap!!!

HomegrownCash.com, the affiliate program of Homegrown Video - The Largest Collection of Amateur XXX - Est. 1982.
Contact - Email: farrell AT homegrownvideo D com Skype: hgfarl
Newsweek Magazine - "Homegrown Video, the longest running series in the history of porn."
Comment
WiredGuy

Pounding Googlebot

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 34515
Share

Post
#7

10-31-2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Far-L
He says affiliates are protected if their sponsors are licensed... but does he tell you who all the sponsors are that have licensed so that everyone can somehow comply?

Can you provide me the link for where he said this?

And that's a good point, Acacia should list their licensee's somewhere such that we know which companies have settled...

WG

I play with Google.
Comment
KraZ

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2003

Posts: 2636
Share

Post
#8

10-31-2003, 09:26 AM

I'm no lawyer but from a business perspective I think Acacia's plan is to get the big players (a.k.a. sponsors) first and then they'll go after anybody else.

Of course, it's not in their interest to provide clear-cut guidelines/procedures because that will hamper their manipulation of the quarterly statements with estimates of thousands of adult webmaster paying royalties.

Here's a post at the Silicon Investor saying stock is way overvalued and Acacia's mass mailing is a desparate measure.

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stock...ubjectid=54357

If I were Bill Gates I wouldn't for a legal battle with Acacia. I would short their stock so bad they'll file Chapter 11 by Xmas!

Selling MedicalPorn,com and a dozen other gyno & doctor domains here:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=871984
Comment
WiredGuy

Pounding Googlebot

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 34515
Share

Post
#9

10-31-2003, 09:43 AM

I would really like to hear from a sponsor program here, particularly on the first question... If I can't find the answer from the boards I guess I'll email my sponsors directly...

WG

I play with Google.
Comment
Rinaldo

Confirmed User

Join Date: Sep 2003

Posts: 5086
Share

Post
#10

10-31-2003, 09:44 AM

CowSHit....
Comment
WiredGuy

Pounding Googlebot

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 34515
Share

Post
#11

10-31-2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Rinaldo
CowSHit....

My thoughts exactly
WG

I play with Google.
Comment
Far-L

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2002

Posts: 6065
Share

Post
#12

10-31-2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by WiredGuy

Can you provide me the link for where he said this?

And that's a good point, Acacia should list their licensee's somewhere such that we know which companies have settled...

WG

Xbiz.com is where I saw it... Spike is working on a rebuttal to the article so I will wait to post the actual article until we have had a chance to throw our two cents in...

HomegrownCash.com, the affiliate program of Homegrown Video - The Largest Collection of Amateur XXX - Est. 1982.
Contact - Email: farrell AT homegrownvideo D com Skype: hgfarl
Newsweek Magazine - "Homegrown Video, the longest running series in the history of porn."
Comment
Dawgy

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2001

Posts: 5856
Share

Post
#13

10-31-2003, 10:08 AM

again, i marvel at the fact that this guy is even still alive.

the revolution is coming.
Comment
Far-L

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2002

Posts: 6065
Share

Post
#14

10-31-2003, 10:20 AM

http://xbiz.com/articles/index.php?article_idp=778

That is the one...

HomegrownCash.com, the affiliate program of Homegrown Video - The Largest Collection of Amateur XXX - Est. 1982.
Contact - Email: farrell AT homegrownvideo D com Skype: hgfarl
Newsweek Magazine - "Homegrown Video, the longest running series in the history of porn."
Comment
HS-Trixxxia

Confirmed User

Join Date: Mar 2002

Posts: 2946
Share

Post
#15

10-31-2003, 10:49 AM

Very good questions WG.

My thoughts on why they aren't saying exactly who signed is perhaps because it's less than they state (or the actual paperwork was not finished at the time of announcement)

Another possibility is that if you know sponsor 1-2-3 signed and you only use them presently and also in the past, you won't be sending them money to avoid being taken to court (which is free money for them)

If you know exactly who has signed and you use 80% of them you may also be inclined to promote those exclusively which means that they most likely will not be able to collect on your gross profits and the website that hasn't signed.

~~♥~~♥~~♥~~♥~~♥~~♥~~♥~~♥~~
Patrizia
COO - ♥ MassiveDollars
Email: patrizia at MassiveDollars dot com
ICQ: 465.826.441 Yahoo: trixxxia_me MSN: trixxxia at hotmail dot com
Comment
FightThisPatent

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2003

Posts: 4090
Share

Post
#16

10-31-2003, 11:46 AM

All things Acacia in this thread: FTP's Acacia FAQ:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=190214

Fight the Patent!

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957
Comment
WiredGuy

Pounding Googlebot

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 34515
Share

Post
#17

10-31-2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Trixxxia
My thoughts on why they aren't saying exactly who signed is perhaps because it's less than they state (or the actual paperwork was not finished at the time of announcement)

Another possibility is that if you know sponsor 1-2-3 signed and you only use them presently and also in the past, you won't be sending them money to avoid being taken to court (which is free money for them)

If you know exactly who has signed and you use 80% of them you may also be inclined to promote those exclusively which means that they most likely will not be able to collect on your gross profits and the website that hasn't signed.

I have to say this strategy of going after affiliates to put pressure on sponsors is pretty smart and will likely work. Webmasters don't have the large legal resources like the sponsors do to defend themselves and will either pay the fees or simply move traffic to sponsors that have settled. A smart approach if you ask me even though I strongly disagree with it.

WG

I play with Google.
Comment
FightThisPatent

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2003

Posts: 4090
Share

Post
#18

10-31-2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by WiredGuy

I have to say this strategy of going after affiliates to put pressure on sponsors is pretty smart and will likely work.

What is ridiculous..... is that if an affiliate does settle.. because 1 or more of their many sponsors didn't have a license.. then the sponsor decides to license...

Would Acacia then refund the affiliates money?

If so, then why bother even going after affiliates in the first place?

It just opens them up to more liability if this situation occurs.

Fight the Patent!

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957
Comment
WiredGuy

Pounding Googlebot

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 34515
Share

Post
#19

11-03-2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
Would Acacia then refund the affiliates money?

I doubt it, they're in this to beef up their number of licensee's and the bottom line at the same time.

I'm still hoping for a sponsor to reply to my initial questions, primarily the first one. For those that have settled, do your settlements include provisions for your webmasters or not? To date, I know Hustler's does but I'm unsure of any other licensee's.

WG

I play with Google.
Comment
Ken

Make more with us.

Join Date: Sep 2001

Posts: 562
Share

Post
#20

11-03-2003, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by WiredGuy

I doubt it, they're in this to beef up their number of licensee's and the bottom line at the same time.

I'm still hoping for a sponsor to reply to my initial questions, primarily the first one. For those that have settled, do your settlements include provisions for your webmasters or not? To date, I know Hustler's does but I'm unsure of any other licensee's.

WG

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WiredGuy,

The answer to your question is yes. If you are sending traffic exclusively to sponsors who have settled, then you are safe (provided you are only sending traffic and not providing video anywhere else on your site, etc)

1. You should check with your attorney, but my understanding is that by default you are safe, because if the sponsor you are sending to is not infringing, than you can not be contributing to infringement.

2. I can't speak for other sponsors who have settled, but we made sure this was spelled out in our settlement agreement very clearly so their were no mis-understanding about this issue.

Note: This ONLY applies to affiliates who have no video on their sites and who simply send traffic to sponsors.

Let me know if you have any further questions on this....

Ken

ColdHardCash.com. The next big thing in adult.

VividCash.com - Check out the all new Vivid.com!

Domain Development Corp - Premier Domain Parking and Management!
Comment
Pleasurepays

BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 11913
Share

Post
#21

11-03-2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by fatbaby
1) IN one of the various articles ( the XBiz one? ) Acacia's head dick said that affiliates are 'safe' if the sponsor they are linking to has caved in to Acacia...

2) They are practicing the old 'throw enough shit at the wall and some of it will stick' with this. The lasest round was not 'packages', simple letters with vague insinuations of infringement....

it was not vague at all. it said specifically that the reciever was infringing on their patent.
Comment
WiredGuy

Pounding Googlebot

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 34515
Share

Post
#22

11-03-2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Ken
The answer to your question is yes. If you are sending traffic exclusively to sponsors who have settled, then you are safe (provided you are only sending traffic and not providing video anywhere else on your site, etc)

1. You should check with your attorney, but my understanding is that by default you are safe, because if the sponsor you are sending to is not infringing, than you can not be contributing to infringement.

After discussing this topic today with two sponsors, it seems the consensus is that webmaster who have video are not covered even if they're linking to settled parties. According to the sponsors I talked to (which shall remain nameless), safe harbor is not provided to webmasters if the webmaster is directly infringing (ie: if I'm hosting videos and linking to a settled party). It seems that Hustler did get this clause for its webmasters which is great but it doesn't seem to be the norm to those who signed settlements.

On the other hand, linking to settled parties (no video infringements) seems to be no problem. Linking to companies which have not settled doesn't seem to be safe either.

WG

Last edited by WiredGuy; 11-03-2003, 12:36 PM.

I play with Google.
Comment
Ken

Make more with us.

Join Date: Sep 2001

Posts: 562
Share

Post
#23

11-03-2003, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by WiredGuy

After discussing this topic today with two sponsors, it seems the consensus is that webmaster who have video are not covered even if they're linking to settled parties. According to the sponsors I talked to (which shall remain nameless), safe harbor is not provided to webmasters if the webmaster is directly infringing (ie: if I'm hosting videos and linking to a settled party). It seems that Hustler did get this clause for its webmasters which is great but it doesn't seem to be the norm to those who signed settlements.

On the other hand, linking to settled parties (no video infringements) seems to be no problem. Linking to companies which have not settled doesn't seem to be safe either.

WG

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WiredGuy,

Not sure that you're 100% clear on Hustler's/Vivid's position. Just to clarify.....

1. if you are hosting/providing video on your own site and have not settled AND you are linking to a sponsor who has settled, you are not protected. This is true, even if you are linking to Hustler, Vivid, etc.

2. If you have NO video on your site and you are simply sending traffic to a sponsor who has settled, you are ok. By default, you are not contributing to infringement because the sponsor you are sending to has settled. In addition, Hustler has this worked into our agreement so it perfectly clear.....

Ken

ColdHardCash.com. The next big thing in adult.

VividCash.com - Check out the all new Vivid.com!

Domain Development Corp - Premier Domain Parking and Management!
Comment
FightThisPatent

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2003

Posts: 4090
Share

Post
#24

11-03-2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by WiredGuy

According to the sponsors I talked to (which shall remain nameless), safe harbor is not provided to webmasters if the webmaster is directly infringing (ie: if I'm hosting videos and linking to a settled party). It seems that Hustler did get this clause for its webmasters which is great but it doesn't seem to be the norm to those who signed settlements.

Very interesting! It is my opinion/observation that Hustler was the first to probably get this kind of protection for its affiliates.....

Berman said recently in an xbiz article that affiliates who signed with sponsors are covered... so whether that means it is automatically retroactive in their contracts or that a sponsor should get a new contract with these terms is the focus.

Sponsors that have settled should have covered the liability of the affiliates.

Despite getting some flak for settling, I think that sponsors should make this information public because it would benefit their affiliates to know they are covered on that angle.

And that affiliates will atleast have more info to decide which sponsors they want to use, for fear of being targeted by Acacia.

Yes, this does play into acacia's plan to coerce non-paying sponsors to pay up by threatening affiliates...but looking at things objectively, it would help affiliates to stay out of legal trouble.. most don't make enough money to pay the minimum $1,500/yearly license, and the combined numbers of the affiliates is what makes the mass number that supports the revenue operations of the sponsors.

Fight The Patent!

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957
Comment
WiredGuy

Pounding Googlebot

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 34515
Share

Post
#25

11-03-2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Ken
WiredGuy,

Not sure that you're 100% clear on Hustler's/Vivid's position. Just to clarify.....

1. if you are hosting/providing video on your own site and have not settled AND you are linking to a sponsor who has settled, you are not protected. This is true, even if you are linking to Hustler, Vivid, etc.

2. If you have NO video on your site and you are simply sending traffic to a sponsor who has settled, you are ok. By default, you are not contributing to infringement because the sponsor you are sending to has settled. In addition, Hustler has this worked into our agreement so it perfectly clear.....

Yup, that's exactly the way I understood it. Sorry if my post wasn't that clear, you summarized it accordingly....

WG

I play with Google.
Comment
WiredGuy

Pounding Googlebot

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 34515
Share

Post
#26

11-03-2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
Very interesting! It is my opinion/observation that Hustler was the first to probably get this kind of protection for its affiliates.....

Sponsors that have settled should have covered the liability of the affiliates.

From the looks of the press releases thus far, it appears only Hustler has opted for coverage of its webmasters which is a great move. But at the same time, I think it's somewhat unfair for sponsors to cover the liability of all its affiliates simply because they have no idea what affiliates are doing. I think if sponsors are going to provide videos as free content, this should be covered, but if a MGP is sending traffic through a video gallery, the sponsor should not be liable since they did not have involvement here.

Webmasters who only link though should definitely obtain coverage. As for webmasters who provide video, that's still infringement until we debunct this patent.

WG

I play with Google.
Comment
FightThisPatent

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2003

Posts: 4090
Share

Post
#27

11-03-2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by WiredGuy

From the looks of the press releases thus far, it appears only Hustler has opted for coverage of its webmasters which is a great move.

From xbiz artice (http://xbiz.com/articles/index.php?article_idp=778) :

"In most cases, if the sponsor licenses from Acacia, the affiliate will be covered," Berman told XBiz. "In order to avoid liability for patent infringement, it is in the best interest of affiliates to send traffic to sponsors that have licenses with Acacia."

Sponsors who settled and didn't get it made clear in their license agreement about covering affiliates should probably revisit their contract (yes, i know it opens the wounds, but you should atleast get what Berman has stated that all sponsors should be getting).

Fight the Patent!

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957
Comment
Ken

Make more with us.

Join Date: Sep 2001

Posts: 562
Share

Post
#28

11-03-2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by WiredGuy

Yup, that's exactly the way I understood it. Sorry if my post wasn't that clear, you summarized it accordingly....

WG

-----------------------

ok, good. I don't need any more heat than I'm already getting so I'm trying to be a clear as possible ;)

btw - In my opinion (and I'm not an attorney), even though we have this in our agreement, the fact is that affiliates are probably covered to any sponsor they are sending to as long as they don't have video and that sponsor has settled.

It is my understanding that by law, the affiliate would not be contributing because once the sponsor has settled, they are no longer infringing.

I'd love to say that Hustler and Vivid have something special, but in reality, it's probably not the case. The only difference seems to be that we have it in our agreement so that it's crystal clear. Maybe other sponsors did the same....I don't know.

Ken

ColdHardCash.com. The next big thing in adult.

VividCash.com - Check out the all new Vivid.com!

Domain Development Corp - Premier Domain Parking and Management!
Comment
Kingfish

Confirmed User

Join Date: Sep 2002

Posts: 668
Share

Post
#29

11-03-2003, 01:30 PM

What bothers me is that the sponsors (that haven?t settled) haven?t been very forth coming in providing guidance to their affiliates. As you can see from your own thread most of them don?t want to touch the topic with a 10 foot pole. As I see it most people that are doing affiliate marketing in this business don?t make a lot of money at it. I suspect 90% or more make less that $10,000 a year. It really burns me to no end that most sponsors are approaching this like our affiliates are going to be fucked, but so be it.
Comment
WiredGuy

Pounding Googlebot

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 34515
Share

Post
#30

11-03-2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Ken
[Bok, good. I don't need any more heat than I'm already getting so I'm trying to be a clear as possible ;)[/B]

I don't see why you guys would come under any heat really, if anything, you guys made it very clear that your webmasters will receive a certain degree of safe harbor, a great move if you ask me. Great job.

WG

I play with Google.
Comment
Ken

Make more with us.

Join Date: Sep 2001

Posts: 562
Share

Post
#31

11-03-2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by WiredGuy

I don't see why you guys would come under any heat really, if anything, you guys made it very clear that your webmasters will receive a certain degree of safe harbor, a great move if you ask me. Great job.

WG

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I know we can't please everyone and our choice to settle was not a popular one, so I'll take any props we can get.

Thanks!

Ken

ColdHardCash.com. The next big thing in adult.

VividCash.com - Check out the all new Vivid.com!

Domain Development Corp - Premier Domain Parking and Management!
Comment
Scootermuze

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2001

Posts: 4513
Share

Post
#32

11-03-2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by WiredGuy

Can you provide me the link for where he said this?

And that's a good point, Acacia should list their licensee's somewhere such that we know which companies have settled...

WG

Berman said.. and these are direct quotes:

"We're only looking to collect on the income stream Once.. You can't collect multiple times on an income stream.. It's simply not allowed.. It's patent issues"

"If the website (affiliate program) is paying us, we're not gonna also collect from the affiliate.. It's either gonna be from one or the other."

These statements were made during D$'s interview with him..

Invterview
Comment
Gemini

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2001

Posts: 7183
Share

Post
#33

11-03-2003, 02:23 PM

if you are hosting/providing video on your own site and have not settled AND you are linking to a sponsor who has settled, you are not protected.

Worthless clause. No more using sponsor provided content ... OR paid for content (vids) on our own servers to help promote someone? Might as well not have made it.

This will force everyone to use sponsor provided gals which ain't all that great.

<center><a target="_blank" href="http://dev.datedollars.com/index.php?s=signup&aid=535&cfg=aac"><img border="0" src="http://216.130.172.224/gfy/gsig.gif" width="490" height="100"></a><br><a href="http://dev.datedollars.com/index.php?s=signup&aid=535&cfg=aac" target="_blank"><b><font face="Arial"><font color="#FF99FF"> Buy me away from Slavedriver Smokey!<br>It's May Sig Sweeps!<font></b></center>
Comment
WiredGuy

Pounding Googlebot

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 34515
Share

Post
#34

11-03-2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Scootermuze
Berman said.. and these are direct quotes:

"We're only looking to collect on the income stream Once.. You can't collect multiple times on an income stream.. It's simply not allowed.. It's patent issues"

"If the website (affiliate program) is paying us, we're not gonna also collect from the affiliate.. It's either gonna be from one or the other."

These statements were made during D$'s interview with him..

I heard the same, but I'm not that inclined to believe his statement. From my understadning, if a webmaster promotes exclusively settled sponsors but licenses video from a third party who has not settled, that webmaster is said to be infringing because the streaming of video is under their patent, even though he is promoting a sponsor that has settled. If the same webmaster is only using images and no video, it seems he is covered and not infringing.

Based on the above, if a webmaster promotes signed sponsors and licenses video from a content provider who has settled, I believe that webmaster is in the clear. So this means that webmasters need to watch who has licensed Acacia's patent on the video content front (direct infringement) and the sponsor front (indirect infringement).

WG

I play with Google.
Comment
Why

MFBA

Join Date: Mar 2003

Posts: 7230
Share

Post
#35

11-03-2003, 02:51 PM

that guy should really take the cock out of his mouth when talking and figure out what the fuck he really means and say it.
Comment
WiredGuy

Pounding Googlebot

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 34515
Share

Post
#36

11-04-2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Why
that guy should really take the cock out of his mouth when talking and figure out what the fuck he really means and say it.

We can only wish, they're just trying to milk the cash cow from every nipple, orfice and secretion.

WG

I play with Google.
Comment

Previous template Next

Working...