How many have made plans for when SOPA or similar passes?

[Paul Markham]

It's my reading of SOPA that it will go after funding of piracy sites. If SOPA is defeated a similar one will take it's place. It will likely include penalties for those who financially support piracy, processors and advertisers. So this will include sponsors linking to piracy sites who are affiliates.

So have you discussed this with a lawyer, partners, or made any plans?

Once it passes I will go through all affiliates and cut those off who don't send traffic and those that do will closely check where the traffic comes from. It could mean some have a lot of hard work ahead.

[Paul Markham]

Will a new law make sponsors need to monitor where traffic and sign ups come from?

[Barry-xlovecam]

One proposed bill is the OPEN Bill

OPEN: Online Protection & ENforcement of Digital Trade Act
http://keepthewebopen.com/

[Paul Markham]

Does it go after the money flow?

[cherrylula]

I'm still waiting for the 2257 police.

[candyflip]

Jesus Christ will you give it up.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by cherrylula

I'm still waiting for the 2257 police.

No shit. That turned out to be a lot of hype about nothing.

But hey, if it's user uploaded, apparently you don't even need it.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by candyflip

Jesus Christ will you give it up.

Ask Jesus, he might know.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

One proposed bill is the OPEN Bill

OPEN: Online Protection & ENforcement of Digital Trade Act
http://keepthewebopen.com/

your image is wong all three only apply due process to PARTS of the transactional process.

ISP/Billing companies should have a right to object to what they believe are mistakenly granted orders, without losing their immunity. They are never involved in the original order (which may be uncontested since foriegn site would need to enter the US jurisdiction to protect their rights), so failure to hear them violates their due process rights.

[brentbacardi]

I don't quite get it... is something wrong with the internet? Do we really need to change anything?

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by brentbacardi

I don't quite get it... is something wrong with the internet? Do we really need to change anything?

The internet has never been better, more innovative and provided more opportunities to more people. The only people who want to change (cripple) it are dinosaurs - either here on this board, or in 'old media'/Hollywood.

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

The internet has never been better, more innovative and provided more opportunities to more people. The only people who want to change (cripple) it are dinosaurs - either here on this board, or in 'old media'/Hollywood.

"innovative opportunities" = steal somebody elses shit and pretend its ok

I like how people use phrases like "cripple the internet" like the internet will die because a few pirate sites are shut down...

the net has never been worse...CONTENT is what makes the net and the ones who bring QUALITY and BUSINESS to the internet are being ripped off... deadbeat pirates and stupid kids are what is crippling the internet and closing opportunities to more and more people... defending piracy is like defending people who print money, they devalue the work and effort of productive people and reward parasites with phoney "rights" to steal and pretend its ok...

the real dinosaurs are the pirates...how hard is it to rewrite SOPA so that it gets accepted? food for thought :D

[EukerVoorn]

Originally Posted by DWB

No shit. That turned out to be a lot of hype about nothing.

But hey, if it's user uploaded, apparently you don't even need it.

I remember you freaking out when I claimed that PayPal, Visa and MasterCard are processing for cp through file lockers. Now you know why people would use file lockers for exchanging cp and get away with it. You just said it... MagaUpload was only the tip of the sewer, at least they attempted to keep their servers free of cp.

[raymor]

Once guy I know very well who has long operated close to the edge is, after many years, suddenly starting legitimate, legal projects. I suspect that behind the scenes a lot of people are quietly putting their sites with stolen content on the back burner and focusing on sites that aren't based on theft or similar.

[EukerVoorn]

My plan for when SOPA or OPEN passes: buy a new Mercedes

[EukerVoorn]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

"innovative opportunities" = steal somebody elses shit and pretend its ok

I like how people use phrases like "cripple the internet" like the internet will die because a few pirate sites are shut down...

the net has never been worse...CONTENT is what makes the net and the ones who bring QUALITY and BUSINESS to the internet are being ripped off... deadbeat pirates and stupid kids are what is crippling the internet and closing opportunities to more and more people... defending piracy is like defending people who print money, they devalue the work and effort of productive people and reward parasites with phoney "rights" to steal and pretend its ok...

the real dinosaurs are the pirates...how hard is it to rewrite SOPA so that it gets accepted? food for thought :D

A big amen. Morons like Helterskelter act as if people want to cripple his right to share his intelligent property with others without any obstacles, while in fact Helterskelter can continue sharing his intelligent property forever... well he could.... if only he had the creativity of producing any content. This debate shouldn't be about human rights vs laws but about creativity vs theft. If people would be uploading their self produced content to MegaUpload only, nobody would have bothered. In fact it would have made MegaUpload a great thing. But setup a site like that, and the dumb thieves will start plundering it within seconds.

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

The internet has never been better, more innovative and provided more opportunities to more people. The only people who want to change (cripple) it are dinosaurs - either here on this board, or in 'old media'/Hollywood.

Total bullshit. When was the last time you had your brain checked for maggots? Those who suffer most from internet piracy are the small independent porn producers, and this is for two reasons:

1) Because they're small

2) Because they're in the porn biz. Authorities will never do anything for porn producers because we're considered the biggest scumbags on earth. So to get our rights we always need to enlist lawyers, which is too expensive for most of us and then in the end you won't get anywhere because lawyers usually take your money and then stab you in your back.

The reason you think it's only the dinosaurs or old Hollywood media caring about the piracy is because those are the ones being capable of making themselves heard. The real misery is amongst the small, unorganized ones. Therefor it would be good if the small ones finially get organized and replace the paranoia in their heads by solidarity.

[Paul Markham]

Not the replies I hoped for. Just the usual anti and pro piracy lot coming in.

Profits fuel innovation. Stealing other peoples innovations, kills profits.

However the way I read SOPA is it will cut the flow of money to the pirates. Will that mean sponsors with affiliates who have sites with pirated content be liable? If advertisers on piracy boards are targeted, what's the difference from a paid advert and a sponsors banner with an affiliates link?

So will sponsors go through all their affiliates, cut out the dead wood, remove the non flourishing branches and closely check what's left?

How will affiliates respond to show that their site is 100% legit?

Will sponsor only content be the rule of the new Internet?

ps
A lot of anti piracy legislation supporters have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. If only to save the work of going through their sites to check they are not linking to pirates. For some it's more, they no longer have to pay for so much they used to have to buy. And some because it will mean they will lose sites, sending traffic, adverting or they own.

[BlackCrayon]

laws will never stop piracy, only technology will. so many laws have been tried to control the internet and all have failed. the only thing that can control the net is the net itself.

[kane]

All of the content on my sites is either created by me or I have the licenses/permission to use it and can prove it so I have no worries. If they went after the sponsor themselves and shut them down I would have to do some quick stepping to switch the content/links on the site to a different sponsor, but it wouldn't be too big of a deal.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

"the real dinosaurs are the pirates...how hard is it to rewrite SOPA so that it gets accepted? food for thought :D

really simple make the penalty for making a bogus complaint the revocation of all the accusers copyrights.

now ask kane and robbie if they are willing to accept that EQUAL penalty.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

really simple make the penalty for making a bogus complaint the revocation of all the accusers copyrights.

now ask kane and robbie if they are willing to accept that EQUAL penalty.

It would depend on how you defined a bogus complaint. Let me give you an example and see what you think.

In this example I find a site using my content without my permission. I do my due diligence and I legitimately feel like they are violating my copyright. So I file a DMCA. The site owner responds to it and explains to me why they are not violating my copyright. I disagree and we end up in court. The court sides with the site. I honestly felt they were violating my copyright, but the court didn't agree with me.

In your opinion is that a bogus claim?

[nikki99]

I will have an open party in my house (no kidding)

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by kane

It would depend on how you defined a bogus complaint. Let me give you an example and see what you think.

In this example I find a site using my content without my permission. I do my due diligence and I legitimately feel like they are violating my copyright. So I file a DMCA. The site owner responds to it and explains to me why they are not violating my copyright. I disagree and we end up in court. The court sides with the site. I honestly felt they were violating my copyright, but the court didn't agree with me.

In your opinion is that a bogus claim?

If the court decides it's a bogus claim then it doesn't matter what you or he thinks.

[kane]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

If the court decides it's a bogus claim then it doesn't matter what you or he thinks.

That is what I am getting at. How do we define a "bogus" claim? Obviously if a site is not infringing and a company knows they are not infringing but files a claim anyway in an attempt to bully or blackmail them, that is a bogus claim. But if a company feels that a site is in violation, they have evidence to back that belief up, yet they still lose in court is that a bogus claim or is that just a lost court case?

If any lost court case is considered a bogus claim then I would never support an amendment like this because it puts the risk of suing so high that no company would dare try it. You never know for sure how things will go in court and if the penalty for trying to defend your copyright and and losing a legit case is the lost of all your copyrights nobody will try defend themselves.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

It would depend on how you defined a bogus complaint. Let me give you an example and see what you think.

In this example I find a site using my content without my permission. I do my due diligence and I legitimately feel like they are violating my copyright. So I file a DMCA. The site owner responds to it and explains to me why they are not violating my copyright. I disagree and we end up in court. The court sides with the site. I honestly felt they were violating my copyright, but the court didn't agree with me.

In your opinion is that a bogus claim?

seriously moron do you know the difference between SOPA rogue site complaint and a single DMCA complaint.

I have told you a 13 times already that i want the law to be balanced

actual damages= actual damages counter suit

statutory damages = statutory damages counter suit

DMCA takedown = lose the copyright on the content you claimed was infringed

SOPA wipe them off the face of the internet = wipe out all your copyrights

don't want the maximum penalties don't jump straight to the censoring options.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

That is what I am getting at. How do we define a "bogus" claim? Obviously if a site is not infringing and a company knows they are not infringing but files a claim anyway in an attempt to bully or blackmail them, that is a bogus claim. But if a company feels that a site is in violation, they have evidence to back that belief up, yet they still lose in court is that a bogus claim or is that just a lost court case?

If any lost court case is considered a bogus claim then I would never support an amendment like this because it puts the risk of suing so high that no company would dare try it. You never know for sure how things will go in court and if the penalty for trying to defend your copyright and and losing a legit case is the lost of all your copyrights nobody will try defend themselves.

ok what if the site "honestly" believed that their actions were covered by fair use but a judge rules it doesn't should they be able to say my bad and walk away with no liability.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

ok what if the site "honestly" believed that their actions were covered by fair use but a judge rules it doesn't should they be able to say my bad and walk away with no liability.

and if there is a difference why do you believe they should suffer the hardship of risking their companies existance when you shouldn't.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

ok what if the site "honestly" believed that their actions were covered by fair use but a judge rules it doesn't should they be able to say my bad and walk away with no liability.

No they should be punished. Equal punishment is fine with me. I just don't want to see Sony having to give up all of their copyrights because they took down some shitty little site where the owner was making $50 a month. It should be equal. A movie company should be able to show the value of a movie that is being pirated on that site. If the site owner can prove that the damages they received were equal to that value than I wouldn't have a problem with the movie company losing control of that copyright, but not all of the copyrights that they own.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

laws will never stop piracy, only technology will. so many laws have been tried to control the internet and all have failed. the only thing that can control the net is the net itself.

Is that an approach we adopt for all laws that don't stop crime or just piracy? What if the people in charge of the technology are like Leaseweb, don't give a shit?

Piracy used to be a cottage industry because it cost money and the pirated goods were sold. Today look at the life style of the MU guys. The law will take it back to a cottage industry. Hit the money flow.

Originally Posted by kane

It would depend on how you defined a bogus complaint. Let me give you an example and see what you think.

In this example I find a site using my content without my permission. I do my due diligence and I legitimately feel like they are violating my copyright. So I file a DMCA. The site owner responds to it and explains to me why they are not violating my copyright. I disagree and we end up in court. The court sides with the site. I honestly felt they were violating my copyright, but the court didn't agree with me.

In your opinion is that a bogus claim?

You're arguing with a cloud. GG has no hope of deciding what the penalty will be for a bogus complaint and he's just flogging a horse that never breathed. Al least mine is still breathing a bit. LOL

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Is that an approach we adopt for all laws that don't stop crime or just piracy? What if the people in charge of the technology are like Leaseweb, don't give a shit?

Piracy used to be a cottage industry because it cost money and the pirated goods were sold. Today look at the life style of the MU guys. The law will take it back to a cottage industry. Hit the money flow.

Well i look at things like spam email, while not totally dead advances in technology made it much harder more costly to do and did away with the average email spammer. All the laws, putting people in jail for 25 years ect did nothing to stop it.

[porno jew]

yeah i plan to "retire" and live of the charity of the state of some foreign country.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

No they should be punished. Equal punishment is fine with me. I just don't want to see Sony having to give up all of their copyrights because they took down some shitty little site where the owner was making $50 a month. It should be equal. A movie company should be able to show the value of a movie that is being pirated on that site. If the site owner can prove that the damages they received were equal to that value than I wouldn't have a problem with the movie company losing control of that copyright, but not all of the copyrights that they own.

so the little guy making $50/month if he is wrong should pay millions of dollars in damages (statutory damages), even though sony fails to prove that they lost even 1 penny in sales.

but a totally innocent site who name has been destroyed, his company been destroyed, and who is forever going to be considered a theif even though he was totally innocent should only get the money he can prove he lost on that one venture

Forget the value of all his future jobs,
forget the intense emotional distress caused by being falsely accused
forget the value of his name
forget the huge upside potential that was destroyed because he was prevented from taking advantage of it.


Let me ask the question then

How many totally innocent companies do you believe you should have a right to destroy

Give me an actual number.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

No they should be punished. Equal punishment is fine with me. I just don't want to see Sony having to give up all of their copyrights because they took down some shitty little site where the owner was making $50 a month. It should be equal. A movie company should be able to show the value of a movie that is being pirated on that site. If the site owner can prove that the damages they received were equal to that value than I wouldn't have a problem with the movie company losing control of that copyright, but not all of the copyrights that they own.

In this example I find a site using my content without my permission. I do my due diligence and I legitimately feel like they are violating my copyright. So I file a DMCA. The site owner responds to it and explains to me why they are not violating my copyright. I disagree and we end up in court. The court sides with the site. I honestly felt they were violating my copyright, but the court didn't agree with me.

so you want "i honestly felt that they were violating my copyright" to be an valid defence

but you want "i honestly felt that what i was doing was fair use" to not be an valid defence

and you have the Gaul to claim "Equal punishment is fine with me"

That exactly the same situation just from the opposite side, and your definition of Equal punishment is fuck them and let me off the hook.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so the little guy making $50/month if he is wrong should pay millions of dollars in damages (statutory damages), even though sony fails to prove that they lost even 1 penny in sales.

but a totally innocent site who name has been destroyed, his company been destroyed, and who is forever going to be considered a theif even though he was totally innocent should only get the money he can prove he lost on that one venture

Forget the value of all his future jobs,
forget the intense emotional distress caused by being falsely accused
forget the value of his name
forget the huge upside potential that was destroyed because he was prevented from taking advantage of it.


Let me ask the question then

How many totally innocent companies do you believe you should have a right to destroy

Give me an actual number.

I'm not going to argue with you. there is no point in that. you are right about everything. You know everything and if you would just listen to me and rise up and lead the masses you could change the world.

As per your question:
You want fair, that is all I want as well. If Sony goes after a small site that makes $50 per month by posting links to Sony's copyrighted materials and the site is found to be guilty there should be actual damages figured out and if the site owner can't pay them they should be shut down. If Sony wrongly goes after a site and it is proven so Sony should have to pay damages, but those damages need to be realistic. If the guys is making $50 per month with his site and the site is shut down for 6 months while the trial goes on he should win $300 plus his legal fees and maybe some extra to cover the cost of getting the site back up and running, but he shouldn't be entitled to millions.

[gideongallery]

oh and btw if you did your proper due diligence including getting the opinion of qualified lawyers

and those lawyers gave you a guarantee that site actions could not be consider legit (and you lost)

then malpractice insurance would cover all your loses for giving up your copyright

The only way you would be on the hook was if you either skipped that step, or were told you could potentially lose and you decided to roll the dice anyway.

The situation worried about really happened you get a big stinking pile of cash from your lawyer to pay you out the full net present value of your copyright monopoly, so your suffering no loses whatsoever.

[stocktrader23]

I'm going to buy up an archive of 1980's (or looks like it's from the 1980's) content and start a paysite since I will then be able to convert 1 out of every 20 that "came into my store" regardless of how shitty my offerings are.

[stocktrader23]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Not the replies I hoped for. Just the usual anti and pro piracy lot coming in.

Profits fuel innovation. Stealing other peoples innovations, kills profits.

However the way I read SOPA is it will cut the flow of money to the pirates. Will that mean sponsors with affiliates who have sites with pirated content be liable? If advertisers on piracy boards are targeted, what's the difference from a paid advert and a sponsors banner with an affiliates link?

So will sponsors go through all their affiliates, cut out the dead wood, remove the non flourishing branches and closely check what's left?

How will affiliates respond to show that their site is 100% legit?

Will sponsor only content be the rule of the new Internet?

ps
A lot of anti piracy legislation supporters have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. If only to save the work of going through their sites to check they are not linking to pirates. For some it's more, they no longer have to pay for so much they used to have to buy. And some because it will mean they will lose sites, sending traffic, adverting or they own.

That's funny, the pirate sites were the ones doing the innovating lately.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

I'm not going to argue with you. there is no point in that. you are right about everything. You know everything and if you would just listen to me and rise up and lead the masses you could change the world.

As per your question:
You want fair, that is all I want as well. If Sony goes after a small site that makes $50 per month by posting links to Sony's copyrighted materials and the site is found to be guilty there should be actual damages figured out and if the site owner can't pay them they should be shut down. If Sony wrongly goes after a site and it is proven so Sony should have to pay damages, but those damages need to be realistic. If the guys is making $50 per month with his site and the site is shut down for 6 months while the trial goes on he should win $300 plus his legal fees and maybe some extra to cover the cost of getting the site back up and running, but he shouldn't be entitled to millions.

are you sure you want that

how are copyright holders going to success prove they actually lost sales, if people can simply claim they wouldn't have bought if they could get it for free (zero loss since we are excluding potential losses from the fair use side).

How about about all the increase sales from people sampling and then buying afterwards you would have to deduct all that extra revenue (since we are cancelling out life time potential growth on the fair use side).

copyright claims would also lose all statutory damages claims (since your capping damages to actual damages on the fair use side).

That a serious level of gimping your going to have to accept to truly be equal.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

are you sure you want that

how are copyright holders going to success prove they actually lost sales, if people can simply claim they wouldn't have bought if they could get it for free (zero loss since we are excluding potential losses from the fair use side).

How about about all the increase sales from people sampling and then buying afterwards you would have to deduct all that extra revenue (since we are cancelling out life time potential growth on the fair use side).

copyright claims would also lose all statutory damages claims (since your capping damages to actual damages on the fair use side).

That a serious level of gimping your going to have to accept to truly be equal.

I just want fair. Fair is fair.

I don't want to see Sony use a SOPA type law to take down a little torrent site that is making its owner $50 per month only to then have the takedown be ruled wrong or "bogus" and have Sonly then lose potentially hundreds of millions in copyrights while the site owner lost a few hundred dollars.

[stocktrader23]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Not the replies I hoped for. Just the usual anti and pro piracy lot coming in.

Profits fuel innovation. Stealing other peoples innovations, kills profits.

However the way I read SOPA is it will cut the flow of money to the pirates. Will that mean sponsors with affiliates who have sites with pirated content be liable? If advertisers on piracy boards are targeted, what's the difference from a paid advert and a sponsors banner with an affiliates link?

So will sponsors go through all their affiliates, cut out the dead wood, remove the non flourishing branches and closely check what's left?

How will affiliates respond to show that their site is 100% legit?

Will sponsor only content be the rule of the new Internet?

ps
A lot of anti piracy legislation supporters have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. If only to save the work of going through their sites to check they are not linking to pirates. For some it's more, they no longer have to pay for so much they used to have to buy. And some because it will mean they will lose sites, sending traffic, adverting or they own.

Originally Posted by kane

I just want fair. Fair is fair.

I don't want to see Sony use a SOPA type law to take down a little torrent site that is making its owner $50 per month only to then have the takedown be ruled wrong or "bogus" and have Sonly then lose potentially hundreds of millions in copyrights while the site owner lost a few hundred dollars.

And I don't want the government seizing websites and denying their owners of their income without due process. You might look at MU and think that they were obviously breaking the law but they have already fucked up domain seizures in the recent past and put people out of business / work over incorrect "proof".

[stocktrader23]

February 2011, ICE seizes 84,000 domains and accuses owners of child pornography, incorrectly.

[stocktrader23]

Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

I just want fair. Fair is fair.

I don't want to see Sony use a SOPA type law to take down a little torrent site that is making its owner $50 per month only to then have the takedown be ruled wrong or "bogus" and have Sonly then lose potentially hundreds of millions in copyrights while the site owner lost a few hundred dollars.

simple solution

don't use the sopa takedown if the lawyer tells there is a chance you will lose.

If he says a guarantee there is no way you will lose, his malpractice will cover that loss.

get a court injunction (go thru due process protected court procedures first)
sue for actual damages
sue for statutory damages (and then get counter sued for 25k per person denied access)
dmca files one at a time (there by only losing the copyright on the individual files wrongfully claimed).

pick the acceptable risk/reward choice that makes sense for you given the predicted likelihood of losing the case.

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by kane

It would depend on how you defined a bogus complaint. Let me give you an example and see what you think.

In this example I find a site using my content without my permission. I do my due diligence and I legitimately feel like they are violating my copyright. So I file a DMCA. The site owner responds to it and explains to me why they are not violating my copyright. I disagree and we end up in court. The court sides with the site. I honestly felt they were violating my copyright, but the court didn't agree with me.

In your opinion is that a bogus claim?

I don't really see how the court could decide like this. What type of content are we talking about? If he steals a full movie of yours there is no way on earth the court will not see it your way. If its just one pic who cares?

Bottom line is: the offending site either has a permit to use your shit or you win in court

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details

in a balanced world

this guy should have a right to claim statutory damages of 25k for every person who was denied access to his site (based on his average traffic from the previous year).

The US government should tax/fine the copyright holders who brought the bogus complaint against this site.


JH get her life fucked over forever for sharing 24 songs (when the only provable sharing is to someone who was authorized to download the content)
equal penalty is this guy getting his statutory damages payout too.

[stocktrader23]

In a balanced world anyone accusing me of child porn to every visitor on my website would get their ass kicked and I would assume possession of their house, money, cars and wife.

[Paul Markham]

The good thing is with this pirasite Kim Dotcom seized it's becoming common knowledge what he was making with a thieving organisation. A little bit of PR work and SOPA sails through, voters will soon change their minds when they see who we're up against.

In a balnced world people would know GG doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of deciding what any penalties are. He could be posting pirates get tickled with a feather duster and the victims get hammered into the ground. For all the difference it makes.

He's a nobody.

[kane]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

I don't really see how the court could decide like this. What type of content are we talking about? If he steals a full movie of yours there is no way on earth the court will not see it your way. If its just one pic who cares?

Bottom line is: the offending site either has a permit to use your shit or you win in court

In most cases you are correct, but you can never be 100% sure when it comes to the courts. People typically settle out of court for one of four reasons. Either they are guilty and they know it so it will be cheaper/safer/easier to settle be done with it; they don't want the publicity of a case so they settle quietly; The cost of fighting even if they are innocent is more than paying a settlement; they settle because you can never be exactly sure how the court will rule so you minimize your exposure to potential damages.

My point with this is that if a person did their job correctly and truly believed they were in the right, but still lost their case that shouldn't be considered a bogus claim.

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by kane

In most cases you are correct, but you can never be 100% sure when it comes to the courts. People typically settle out of court for one of four reasons. Either they are guilty and they know it so it will be cheaper/safer/easier to settle be done with it; they don't want the publicity of a case so they settle quietly; The cost of fighting even if they are innocent is more than paying a settlement; they settle because you can never be exactly sure how the court will rule so you minimize your exposure to potential damages.

My point with this is that if a person did their job correctly and truly believed they were in the right, but still lost their case that shouldn't be considered a bogus claim.

But if he is using your material without a license you don't even need a lawyer. It's ridiculously easy to prove that he does not have a payed for license to use your stuff. I just don't see how this could be more than 5 min in court. Either he has a contract that permits him use of your material or he does not. Super simple.

[Choker]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Once it passes I will go through all affiliates and cut those off who don't send traffic and those that do will closely check where the traffic comes from. It could mean some have a lot of hard work ahead.

Funny shit Paul. hahahahaha That's gonna take you all of what? 10 seconds? wow LOL