My thoughts after the D-Money show... - GoFuckYourself.com

TheFLY · 07-29-2003, 10:06 PM

There are ways to make money with video outside of Acacia's influence -- but Acacia is obviously not about to give us ideas as we heard on the D-Money Show ("I'll have to talk to my engineers about that"). I think it will take a little time for sites to find biz models that Acacia won't bother with... and the traffic might just redirect to follow these new models... On the other hand the subscription<->video downloads system that they are targeting is a pretty nice formula for making money.

On that note: I would think this Acacia news might be slightly good news for sites that have biz models that don't follow the formula that Acacia is targeting...

At this time it's *not* exactly clear what formulas they are targeting -- but I think the D-Money show gave us a better idea... Maybe it's time to change your strategy or start from scratch

D-Money · 07-29-2003, 10:20 PM

Personally, I'm still confused after this show.

If the targets in our industry are the partner programs, then why bother sending my Players Ball letters?

The only way I can possibly understand getting a letter, knowing I'm not the targeted demographic of their choice, is that I once signed up for a program (not to be named) so I can make an override from other webmasters. That link was in my newsletter and never signed 1 reseller, it was only used for a week or so, maybe more, not sure.

Today, when I asked Acacia if anyone turned over affiliates, they said no.

When I explained over the phone with Robert the nature of my site, he seemed surprised I wasn't an affiliate program. Perhaps my name was in someones database when I signed up for my webmaster over ride? I believe I signed up as the Players Ball for that program, long ago. Never made a sale from it or sent a referrer. But if he says no one turned over database info, it must just be a coincidence.

Food 4 thought. I'm just curious why it was Players Ball and not D$ Show. Remember, the Players Ball never had videos on it, just a link to the D$ Show.

So the question still remains, why me? It's obvious the Players Ball isn't a partner program.

The Other Steve · 07-29-2003, 10:24 PM

I think it was probably just a case of his 'researchers' screwing up. My partner got the package - addressed to the affiliate program domain she was using for her paysite.

There is not one kb of video anywhere on that site.

TheFLY · 07-29-2003, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by D-Money
So the question still remains, why me? It's obvious the Players Ball isn't a partner program.

Proof destiny lies in a name...

BigFrog · 07-29-2003, 11:19 PM

i think it's funny that an ftp download is now considered 'streaming' by acacia.

whatever.

Indeed · 07-29-2003, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFrog
i think it's funny that an ftp download is now considered 'streaming' by acacia.

whatever.

what a fucking joke

venus · 07-30-2003, 12:05 AM

I am alot confused after the show.
ACACIA said that if your video does only one of the claims listed on a patent then its infrindgment. I dont understand that, I thought the claims is what made the patent, the claims were just steps, not each one was its on entity.
We hope to be meeting with a patent attorney this week and I will be asking these questions because I still dont think very many people use their system for distributing video. their patent is precise on what their invention is, ACACIA is not. they seem to be trying to make things up as they go along.

fiveyes · 07-30-2003, 12:33 AM

I heard a lot of (what I took to be deliberate) misinformation from this Berman guy.

All of his talk of exhaustive prior art searches already been done, for instance, I'm certain was to dissuade anyone from going that direction. With the tons of volumes of published works out there, coupled with the fact that most searches have been performed by their side to date, the chances are good that a decisive paper or publication has been overlooked.

But his statement that each claim had to be invalidated by prior art was pure bs- attacking a patent on the grounds that it would've been "obvious to a person skilled in the art" has had success in the past.

And finally, Acacia seems to disregard the fact that video was being downloaded from subscription BBS' throughout the '80's (albeit a very small portion of the offered files due to modem speeds at the time). Unless they can show how the way we present video offerings differs from back then, why I guess they were trying to patent breathing after all...

[Labret] · 07-30-2003, 12:35 AM

SleazyDream · 07-30-2003, 12:37 AM

someone sold out and handed over names. it was pretty obvious.

fiveyes · 07-30-2003, 12:43 AM

Internext ought to be interesting. Wish I was going, but glad I'm not.

Mr.Fiction · 07-30-2003, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fiveyes
I heard a lot of (what I took to be deliberate) misinformation from this Berman guy.

All of his talk of exhaustive prior art searches already been done, for instance, I'm certain was to dissuade anyone from going that direction. With the tons of volumes of published works out there, coupled with the fact that most searches have been performed by their side to date, the chances are good that a decisive paper or publication has been overlooked.

But his statement that each claim had to be invalidated by prior art was pure bs- attacking a patent on the grounds that it would've been "obvious to a person skilled in the art" has had success in the past.

And finally, Acacia seems to disregard the fact that video was being downloaded from subscription BBS' throughout the '80's (albeit a very small portion of the offered files due to modem speeds at the time). Unless they can show how the way we present video offerings differs from back then, why I guess they were trying to patent breathing after all...

07-29-2003, 10:06 PM	#1
TheFLY So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: http://www.thefly.net/ --- Quit your job and live off steady traffic. Posts: 11,856	My thoughts after the D-Money show... There are ways to make money with video outside of Acacia's influence -- but Acacia is obviously not about to give us ideas as we heard on the D-Money Show ("I'll have to talk to my engineers about that"). I think it will take a little time for sites to find biz models that Acacia won't bother with... and the traffic might just redirect to follow these new models... On the other hand the subscription<->video downloads system that they are targeting is a pretty nice formula for making money. On that note: I would think this Acacia news might be slightly good news for sites that have biz models that don't follow the formula that Acacia is targeting... At this time it's not exactly clear what formulas they are targeting -- but I think the D-Money show gave us a better idea... Maybe it's time to change your strategy or start from scratch

07-29-2003, 10:20 PM	#2
D-Money Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Player Del Ray Posts: 9,716	Personally, I'm still confused after this show. If the targets in our industry are the partner programs, then why bother sending my Players Ball letters? The only way I can possibly understand getting a letter, knowing I'm not the targeted demographic of their choice, is that I once signed up for a program (not to be named) so I can make an override from other webmasters. That link was in my newsletter and never signed 1 reseller, it was only used for a week or so, maybe more, not sure. Today, when I asked Acacia if anyone turned over affiliates, they said no. When I explained over the phone with Robert the nature of my site, he seemed surprised I wasn't an affiliate program. Perhaps my name was in someones database when I signed up for my webmaster over ride? I believe I signed up as the Players Ball for that program, long ago. Never made a sale from it or sent a referrer. But if he says no one turned over database info, it must just be a coincidence. Food 4 thought. I'm just curious why it was Players Ball and not D$ Show. Remember, the Players Ball never had videos on it, just a link to the D$ Show. So the question still remains, why me? It's obvious the Players Ball isn't a partner program. __________________ Still Ballin'

07-29-2003, 10:24 PM	#3
The Other Steve Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Sunny Queensland - perfect one day and better the next. Posts: 2,106	I think it was probably just a case of his 'researchers' screwing up. My partner got the package - addressed to the affiliate program domain she was using for her paysite. There is not one kb of video anywhere on that site. __________________ Left intentionally blank ... just like my brain

07-30-2003, 12:05 AM	#7
venus Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Phoenix, Az Posts: 3,112	I am alot confused after the show. ACACIA said that if your video does only one of the claims listed on a patent then its infrindgment. I dont understand that, I thought the claims is what made the patent, the claims were just steps, not each one was its on entity. We hope to be meeting with a patent attorney this week and I will be asking these questions because I still dont think very many people use their system for distributing video. their patent is precise on what their invention is, ACACIA is not. they seem to be trying to make things up as they go along. __________________ Muscle/Fitness Adult Affiliate Program Since 1997 www.venuscash.com

07-30-2003, 12:33 AM	#8
fiveyes Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 1,680	I heard a lot of (what I took to be deliberate) misinformation from this Berman guy. All of his talk of exhaustive prior art searches already been done, for instance, I'm certain was to dissuade anyone from going that direction. With the tons of volumes of published works out there, coupled with the fact that most searches have been performed by their side to date, the chances are good that a decisive paper or publication has been overlooked. But his statement that each claim had to be invalidated by prior art was pure bs- attacking a patent on the grounds that it would've been "obvious to a person skilled in the art" has had success in the past. And finally, Acacia seems to disregard the fact that video was being downloaded from subscription BBS' throughout the '80's (albeit a very small portion of the offered files due to modem speeds at the time). Unless they can show how the way we present video offerings differs from back then, why I guess they were trying to patent breathing after all... __________________ <CENTER><A HREF="http://www.hot-off-bourbon.com/" target="_blank"><IMG SRC="http://www.hot-off-bourbon.com/images/hob-logosmall.jpg" border="0"></A> <FONT face="Comic Sans MS" SIZE="-1"><I>Mardi Gras, Spring Break, Wet-T, Night Club Action, UpSkirt, Oil Wrestling, Voyeur</I></FONT></CENTER>

07-29-2003, 11:19 PM	#5
BigFrog Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,057	i think it's funny that an ftp download is now considered 'streaming' by acacia. whatever.

07-30-2003, 12:35 AM	#9
[Labret] Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: Са́нкт-Петербу́рг Posts: 10,945	wd

07-30-2003, 12:37 AM	#10
SleazyDream I'm here for SPORT Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phone # (401) 285-0696 Posts: 41,470	someone sold out and handed over names. it was pretty obvious. __________________ This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog! Now read without the word dog.

07-30-2003, 12:43 AM	#11
fiveyes Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 1,680	Internext ought to be interesting. Wish I was going, but glad I'm not. __________________ <CENTER><A HREF="http://www.hot-off-bourbon.com/" target="_blank"><IMG SRC="http://www.hot-off-bourbon.com/images/hob-logosmall.jpg" border="0"></A> <FONT face="Comic Sans MS" SIZE="-1"><I>Mardi Gras, Spring Break, Wet-T, Night Club Action, UpSkirt, Oil Wrestling, Voyeur</I></FONT></CENTER>