Originally Posted by TheSquealer (Post 20063208)

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.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer (Post 20063210)

Haha.. i'm tryin'. Launching some new stuff... have a bit of free time and a bit anxious waiting on coders and designers. :)

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 20063214)

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.

Originally Posted by johnnyloadproductions (Post 20063215)

I think the best example of where this didn't get resolved was Sir Eddie Coates and sundevilangels.com http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/val...local_porn.php Poor guy can't get a break from himself or the circumstances he creates for himself. It only stings more because the whole girlsdoporn fiasco eclipsed the brief moment he had for his site. I remember an affiliate getting an email about a domain that contained sun devils promoting the site. Of course unlike a program, it's a little harder to rebrand all the content and content domain.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer (Post 20063217)

Thats not the same at all. This is more like stealing the pepsi name to sell an unauthorized pepsi drink. Then using that name illegally to market that drink through its use in the registration of the domain and the creation of a character called Pepsi... causing confusion in the market place and benefit from Pepsi's marketing, advertising and branding efforts to promote something not associated with them at all.... and then making that material available to 3rd parties to also profit from.

Originally Posted by JFK (Post 20063178)

aaaaahhhhhh , soothing, very sooooooothing :Graucho

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 20063213)

Squealer is correct. Although I'm sure the trademark holder weighed the porn association angle of any legal actions which is why nothing probably will happen."SECONDARY LIABILITY FOR TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT"http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us
.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 20063223)

Again that has nothing to do with me (or you presumably). You are discussing brand infringement by a sponsor, I have no skin in that fight. It only affects me if it passes through to affiliates. Whether I care or not depends on that fact. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by LeRoy (Post 20062833)

Shit happens!

Originally Posted by TheSquealer (Post 20063232)

You asked question, i answered it as best as i understood. But you are missing the broader point. I believe that all you have to do is materially contribute to the infringement. I.e. display text links with the mark, banners with the mark, videos with the mark, text with the mark etc etc etc all to benefit both yourself and the direct infringer, where each of you have a direct financial interest in the infringement (i.e. you both benefit from the sales generated), which then creates a secondary liability on your part.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 20063231)

Interesting read. Think you.
Any idea what the document date would be?
I didn't see any date on it which is strange.

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 20063240)

The document refers to a number of different court cases the most recent a 2009 verdict in favor of trademark owner. So it's 5 years old at the most.
.

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 20062942)

My Official Response:
I cannot comment.

My Unofficial Response:
Shit happens.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer (Post 20063064)

The Porn Nerd,

I get that you are a loose canon and irrational - what you did was illegal, plain and simple. Anyone that sent you traffic is also liable. You illegally used someone's protected property and built an enterprise around it. That's not real hard to understand.

Originally Posted by ruff (Post 20063039)

What's your point? And exactly what is it that you are successful at? Are you another baller webmaster that makes massive amounts of money, but no one really knows exactly how you do it?

Originally Posted by xxxjay (Post 20063233)

ain't that the truth:thumbsup

Originally Posted by ruff (Post 20063057)

Like I said, you are nobody in this business.

Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 20063672)

I have to second this.

There are enough challenges for this industry in 2014, without having a bunch of fake nick sock puppets trying to rain on every parade they can find.

If you want to be taken seriously, be willing to stand by what you say.

Originally Posted by pompousjohn (Post 20063756)

Losing 5 years of hard work? Whatever. A quick newsletter to affiliates saying "Get your stats over here instead" will solve that. No need to even change links.

Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 20063672)

I have to second this.

There are enough challenges for this industry in 2014, without having a bunch of fake nick sock puppets trying to rain on every parade they can find.

If you want to be taken seriously, be willing to stand by what you say.

Originally Posted by pompousjohn (Post 20063756)

This thread is a perfect example of how GFY has actually is becoming a more worthless place to do business every day. Used to be a lot of useful information here, but now any details about anyone's business are just used to harass and troll. Seems disclosing one's url on GFY is about the worst mistake a person can make, sooner or later some bitch faggot wants to come along and fuck with you about it just for a little attention.

Originally Posted by HandballJim (Post 20063132)

Looking at the trademark data you quoted, it seems to be new? 2012-2013? Wasn't Porn Nerd using that term for several years before 2012-2013? If he was, he could win the trademark case. A trademark needs to be active, and the term was used in commerce. So possibly maybe he was compensated to change his program to Porn Nerd. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by candyflip (Post 20063778)

Mr. Peabody has been around since the 60's. It's likely Dreamworks took over the TM from whoever owned it prior, in the lead up to production and distribution of the film.

Originally Posted by ruff (Post 20063873)

And the film tanked. Case closed.

Originally Posted by candyflip (Post 20063875)

What does the film taking have to do with trademarks and distribution?

Originally Posted by JoshGirls Josh (Post 20064240)

squeaker is proof that IQ follows the laffer curve. There is a point that an intelligent man overthinks so bad his conclusions are as dumb as a retard eating bread & butter off the floor.

Originally Posted by signupdamnit (Post 20063767)

Yes but also keep in mind there is no advantage for an affiliate to share what they do exactly or which sites they own since it increases the risk of copycats. The situation is different for a sponsor or service provider who is looking to network in order to drive more sales or recruit affiliates. You derive advantage from the visibility. An affiliate usually will not.

Originally Posted by JoshGirls Josh (Post 20064240)

squeaker is proof that IQ follows the laffer curve. There is a point that an intelligent man overthinks so bad his conclusions are as dumb as a retard eating bread & butter off the floor.

really. to express concern an affiliate may be subject to secondary copyright liability, then to say im too lazy too look into whether it actually happened in the real world.

thanks for that LOL.

:)

Originally Posted by TheSquealer (Post 20064278)

I don't expect anyone here to read above the 3rd grade level so I am not shocked at your poor understanding of what was being discussed. I can only suppose there are too many big words for you.

. I said didn't know if RICO could apply to secondary infringement in any way or in the same way it can apply to primary infringement. I said I was too lazy to do the research to see if there are any possible arguments or circumstances which would pass the tests..... and as I've said, affiliates have been held liable plenty of times in mainstream for their contributory infringement which only takes 2 fucking seconds to verify.

Congrats in your attempt at reading, though. You were almost close.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer (Post 20064285)

Another tard that can't read. No, I did not make any claim that the civil application of RICO statutes could possibly apply to the secondary infringer.

There is infringement
There is the secondary infringement (webmasters)
There is the civil allocation of RICO statutes which can definitely apply to the primary infringer

I said i did not know if RICO could in any way ally to the secondary infringer which basically allows for triple damages.