Time to fight back...ALL TGPS READ THIS - Page 5 - GoFuckYourself.com

Sharpie · 10-25-2003, 08:34 AM

Consider two things:

1. IMPA has already filed a counter suit against Acasia. There is a link to it somewhere in all this discussion.

2. Since your proposed suit does not go after the patent at all..... you are in essense saying :yes, Acasia has a patent, but it doesn't apply to us? That is not the main message.

I realize you all feel 'out of the loop, because you have jumped on the bandwagon months after things have been going on. It would be a good idea if JMM would come to the board once again and give you an update - in detail - what has been going and and WHEN. They have been doing it as they have went along, but it has not gained your attention. NOW would be a good time for a detailed update!

cmwkings · 10-25-2003, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Choker

hmm, do we want everyone to know what we are doing? Would it be to our benifit that others see a grass roots movement to fight Acacia? I think this is something we should ask a attorney about.

My thoughts exactly......Anyone want to start a website and put up some cash to collectively fight this bullshit....We all worked hard to get what we have....All I can say is typical legal fucks hard at work trying to take OUR money. I won't have time to read this whole thread so sorry if I'm repeating what has already been said, sorry. Collectively we can ALL fight this, I would hope.

I will contact my legal reps and see what they have to say...

RedBumper · 10-25-2003, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Choker
Ok, since it is pretty obvious by now that Acacia is going after TGPs that link to galleries and or sites that have video on it, unless we do something we are all fucked. We need a organized effort to combat this. Not from some site we never heard of that comes on the scene when this Acacia crap started.

We need a attorney representing us all in mass. I doubt VERY seriously that any site that simply links to a gallery with video on it is actually in violation of this patent. However since we are being challenged it is up to US to prove this.

What I propose is simple......

I can set up a script to take payments, record EVERY expense, record every webmaster that donates and his sites. The more webmasters that participate the lower the cost per webmaster. I can keep full stats so at the end anyone paying more than his share can get refunded. If the total costs to fight this is $100000 and there are 1000 webmasters represented, then the cost will be $100 each.

I live in Orlando, isn't the top Internet attorney in Altamonte Springs? Somebody got the contact info for him? I can meet with the attorneys as needed. I can keep track of everything and make available access to everything to anyone who participates.

Remember history, first the letter then a summons. We cannot afford to wait until we are served a court summons.

Any thoughts, suggestion on this please post. Don't waste your breath with the Acacia should die posts. PLEASE post constructive ideas. WE HAVE TO BAN TOGETHER on this. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW and at the same time keep the costs to each individual webmaster as low as possible.

I don't have a TGP myself but i think your on the right path..... post the donate paypal addy.

FATPad · 10-25-2003, 08:40 AM

Piling in with the people already fighting this does seem to be the best scenario.

They already have the top patent firm in the country on this. F&R already knows this patent inside and out and has a ton of work already done. Starting with someone else seems...less than optimal.

Dividing the industry even more into "small time people" vs "big time people" vs "Acacia" doesn't sound like a good idea.

Pool the resources and get it taken care of once and for all.

There has to be a way for the free site guys to pool with the D11 (or whatever they're called), help them fight the patent itself while also getting the advice they need to deal with these letters, and not spending extraneous money on things that don't concern them right now.

Or maybe not. Don't know. Seems like with all this money that's flying around and a single common enemy it should be possible without fragmenting even more and playing even more into Acacia's hands.

berg.the.red · 10-25-2003, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharpie
[B]2. Since your proposed suit does not go after the patent at all..... you are in essense saying :yes, Acasia has a patent, but it doesn't apply to us? That is not the main message.

i think the message would be: whatever patent your claiming applies to us, by your own definition of what is covered doesn't apply.

basschick · 10-25-2003, 10:36 AM

why not get a high-end patent attorney with a lot of juice rather than an internet attorney? this is more a patent issue than an internet issue - after all, acacia is going after cable tv stations, too.

it seems to me it might be a good idea to get a second suit against acacia going - besides, the second attorney might have an entirely different approach.

fiveyes · 10-25-2003, 10:49 AM

I certainly hope Choker works out something with the existing defense group, Acacia probably saw from the git'go that this industry was balkanized to the extend it couldn't make a united stand against it and that's why it focused on us first.

My take on this is that Acacia is just one of many threats to the open standards we've benefited from on the Web. There'll be others down the road and there others that are watching right now to see exactly how we respond before they move in with their claims to a peice of the pie.

Remember, the saying is not "there are good reasons to split up at times", it's

"United we stand, divided we fall".

Choker · 10-25-2003, 11:07 AM

I'm waiting on HG to post so I can call him. I still think the idea of a class action lawsuit for harassment and extortion is the best route to go for TGPers. 500 webmasters at $100 each would be $50k. That should be enough. Someone mentioned that rarely does the winner in a lawsuit like this get attorneys cost from the looser. Well in a lawsuit you have to sue for money. Why not sue for our attorney costs plus a little more. Whatever more we get put towards further defense? If we loose the case do we really loose it?

I see all these posts "Acacia suck me" "Acacia fuck off" etc. Well if you really want to get that message to Acacia, a class Action lawsuit would do it pretty damned good IMO.

berg.the.red · 10-25-2003, 11:42 AM

well ... harrassment could be a relative term. extortion would probably have to be proved. all they've REALLY done so far is sent out information packets "requesting" you to sign.

it WOULD however be good to get a legal opinion on the matter for IF and/or WHEN people start getting socked with legal action. that way everyone has a good idea of what is involved, what legal recourse is available and what it'll cost. ya never know --if it's the IMPA bunch: they may be able to say flat out -> it's bullshit. it may also add a little fuel to their fire about what acacia is claiming and then re-claiming for the scope of their patent.

BRISK · 10-25-2003, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Choker
I'm waiting on HG to post so I can call him. I still think the idea of a class action lawsuit for harassment and extortion is the best route to go for TGPers. 500 webmasters at $100 each would be $50k. That should be enough. Someone mentioned that rarely does the winner in a lawsuit like this get attorneys cost from the looser. Well in a lawsuit you have to sue for money. Why not sue for our attorney costs plus a little more. Whatever more we get put towards further defense? If we loose the case do we really loose it?

I see all these posts "Acacia suck me" "Acacia fuck off" etc. Well if you really want to get that message to Acacia, a class Action lawsuit would do it pretty damned good IMO.

Interesting

theking · 10-25-2003, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Choker
I'm waiting on HG to post so I can call him. I still think the idea of a class action lawsuit for harassment and extortion is the best route to go for TGPers. 500 webmasters at $100 each would be $50k. That should be enough. Someone mentioned that rarely does the winner in a lawsuit like this get attorneys cost from the looser. Well in a lawsuit you have to sue for money. Why not sue for our attorney costs plus a little more. Whatever more we get put towards further defense? If we loose the case do we really loose it?

I see all these posts "Acacia suck me" "Acacia fuck off" etc. Well if you really want to get that message to Acacia, a class Action lawsuit would do it pretty damned good IMO.

I am not sure about "harassment" but extortion is a felonious crime. Pick up the telephone and call any criminal attorney...read the contents of the Acacia letter and he will tell you if they may be committing "extortion" and/or "harrassment".

I have read the content of the letter sent out by Acacia and it does not appear to constitute "harrasment" and/or "extortion"...to this laymen.

Choker · 10-25-2003, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by berg.the.red
well ... harrassment could be a relative term. extortion would probably have to be proved. all they've REALLY done so far is sent out information packets "requesting" you to sign.

it WOULD however be good to get a legal opinion on the matter for IF and/or WHEN people start getting socked with legal action. that way everyone has a good idea of what is involved, what legal recourse is available and what it'll cost. ya never know --if it's the IMPA bunch: they may be able to say flat out -> it's bullshit. it may also add a little fuel to their fire about what acacia is claiming and then re-claiming for the scope of their patent.

If we won a extortion lawsuit, it would be a big defeat for Acacia. First it would show everyone that porn sites can defeat Acacia.
It would also give others fighting the patent ammo, Acacia would be guilty of using extortion in order to enforce what they believe is a valid patent.

If we lost a extortion lawsuit, we show the world that we will fight back. Acacia would not have any new ammo. All they would be able to say is that their letter and tactics were not considered extortion.

Either way a lawsuit like this would not be the end of the Acacia fight. But we have to start somewhere.

dantheman · 10-25-2003, 11:52 AM

choker, call JMM This is too important for you not to.

from JMM's post,
"If anyone would like to talk to me about this, feel free to call my cell phone at 909-232-3396 and I will be happy to explain why we NEED your support, we need your $$$, but we DONT need yet ANOTHER organization."

Kingfish · 10-25-2003, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Choker
I'm waiting on HG to post so I can call him. I still think the idea of a class action lawsuit for harassment and extortion is the best route to go for TGPers. 500 webmasters at $100 each would be $50k. That should be enough. Someone mentioned that rarely does the winner in a lawsuit like this get attorneys cost from the looser. Well in a lawsuit you have to sue for money. Why not sue for our attorney costs plus a little more. Whatever more we get put towards further defense? If we loose the case do we really loose it?

I see all these posts "Acacia suck me" "Acacia fuck off" etc. Well if you really want to get that message to Acacia, a class Action lawsuit would do it pretty damned good IMO.

No it would be pointless IMO if someone believes they have a legitimate legal claim against you you can?t file a suit against them for attempting to collect on it. Well actually you can, but you would probably be laughed out of court. The only way you could prove a case like this would be to prove that their patent is invalid, and that they had knowledge that their patent was unenforceable against you under any legal theory. The best way for you to make a difference is to do something that isn?t already being duplicated. Namely, hire a good reputable law firm to investigate if it is possible for them to enforce their patent against people that simply link to movie galleries. Then based upon that information you can make an informed decision as to where you want to go next.

vicki · 10-25-2003, 12:17 PM

Firstly I'd like to say that I'm following this thread and its progress and i'll be in touch as things begin to develop further

now onto other things
I've been searching for legal presidence in regards to linking laws pertaining to PATENTS. I've only found one so far and it deals with a hyperlinking patent that in no way is similar to our needs
(it describes a system in which multiple users, located at remote terminals, can access data stored at a central computer. The data is received by the remote terminals via the telephone lines)

however while reading, I found that it gives an excellent description of how they determine 'infringement':

Quote:

Determining whether a device infringes another's patent is a two step process.
#1 First the court construes the claims to determine their scope and meaning.
#2 The next step is to compare the allegedly infringing device against the claims as construed to determind whether the device embodies every limitation of the claims.
A device literally infringes a patent, when it "embodies every limititation of the asserted claims"
"literal infringement of a claim exists when each of the clain limitations "reads on," or in other words is found in the accused device."
Even if a device does not literally infringe a patent, it may still infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents applies when there are insubstantial differences between the claimed invention and the accused product.

Now am I being blonde here or does Acacia hold a patent on hyperlinking one site to another?
Not that I know of and if thats the case, how can any linkers be infringing??
My take on this subject: You can only infringe on a patent itself, you cannot infringe by way of "offering access to" .. unless your patent is FOR 'offering access to'. Their patents are for the 'process of', and do not cover 'access to, via a hyperlink', therefore no infringement.

Moving along, in reguards to hyperlinking lawsuits, so far I've found them dealing with copyright, trademarks, and first amendment types only

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35306,00.html
""Deep linking has an official seal of approval now that U.S. District Judge Harry Hupp has ruled that websites can legally provide links to any pages on all other sites.""

Deep linking is different from what we are doing
deep linking = linking to specific areas of a website that is copyrighted, without the copyright owners permission
affiliate linking = linking to specific galleries or sponsor programs with their full cooperation, encouragement and knowledge to the extent that they've given us user names and passwords as permission

If deep linking has been ruled as legal ... well you see the picture

here is a link if you guys want to research a bit
http://www.linksandlaw.com/courtdecisions-usa.htm

Jimmer · 10-25-2003, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kingfish

No it would be pointless IMO if someone believes they have a legitimate legal claim against you you can?t file a suit against them for attempting to collect on it. .

So what if they have an illegitamate claim as if they send a letter to me in Canada were there is no patent?

vicki · 10-25-2003, 12:28 PM

holy cow after rereading that *I* hardly understood what I was saying! lol

anyway, long story short, they do not hold a patent on hyperlinking to their device

We all know its absurd but the fact remains (as choker mentions) that many have received these letters.
I'll back a group that takes acacia to task on this but i'm hoping we can consolidate the efforts with the D11 gang

basschick · 10-25-2003, 12:33 PM

if the acacia patent was to be considered legit, still it is up to a court or representatives of a court to determine exactly what the patent did or didn't cover. acacia's claim is their patent is EXTREMELY broad, covering everything vaguely relating to streaming.

if their patents were upheld fully, they would not be guilty of extortion, nor is one letter harrassment.

showing the powers that be that the patents cannot exist in this wide a scope is very important, imo. having those patents either discredited, or more likely, fine-tuned so that there they cover clear smaller areas is the thing here as i see it.

the person to do this would be a patent attorney. and there is no reason a second organization of webmasters cannot work with the first (impa). but if they were to do so, maybe they would all need a say on what attorney, what publicist, and what tack would be taken.

impa is doing great work as far as i know, but the point is that i don't know that far. is the attorney they have chosen the best for this case? does he have extreme knowledge of patents and how they work, with strong secondary knowledge of the internet? what is his experience in these areas? same question about the publicist - i haven't seen much about this fight, and i've read about publicists that really get things noticed.

seems like this would be good stuff to know before deciding whether you want to support an org with a program of action in this area.

Jimmer · 10-25-2003, 12:37 PM

I think that Chokers idea is better for the small webmaster, for a donation with IMPA you get access to their website, for a class-action suit you could end up getting $$$ from Acadia.

Kingfish · 10-25-2003, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vicki
Firstly I'd like to say that I'm following this thread and its progress and i'll be in touch as things begin to develop further

now onto other things
I've been searching for legal presidence in regards to linking laws pertaining to PATENTS. I've only found one so far and it deals with a hyperlinking patent that in no way is similar to our needs
(it describes a system in which multiple users, located at remote terminals, can access data stored at a central computer. The data is received by the remote terminals via the telephone lines)

however while reading, I found that it gives an excellent description of how they determine 'infringement':

Now am I being blonde here or does Acacia hold a patent on hyperlinking one site to another?
Not that I know of and if thats the case, how can any linkers be infringing??
My take on this subject: You can only infringe on a patent itself, you cannot infringe by way of "offering access to" .. unless your patent is FOR 'offering access to'. Their patents are for the 'process of', and do not cover 'access to, via a hyperlink', therefore no infringement.

Moving along, in reguards to hyperlinking lawsuits, so far I've found them dealing with copyright, trademarks, and first amendment types only

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35306,00.html
""Deep linking has an official seal of approval now that U.S. District Judge Harry Hupp has ruled that websites can legally provide links to any pages on all other sites.""

Deep linking is different from what we are doing
deep linking = linking to specific areas of a website that is copyrighted, without the copyright owners permission
affiliate linking = linking to specific galleries or sponsor programs with their full cooperation, encouragement and knowledge to the extent that they've given us user names and passwords as permission

If deep linking has been ruled as legal ... well you see the picture

here is a link if you guys want to research a bit
http://www.linksandlaw.com/courtdecisions-usa.htm

It is a different claim. The claim as I see it is (You the linker are inducing the direct infringer (the sponsor) to infringe. The inducement to infringe is a different legal theory than direct infringement. As I explained in another thread, I don?t think the linking case is that relevant for a couple of reasons 1. That cased didn?t deal with patent law 2. It was dealing with a different type of relationship between the linker and linkee.

Kingfish · 10-25-2003, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimmer

So what if they have an illegitamate claim as if they send a letter to me in Canada were there is no patent?

You would have to prove 1. Their claim was indeed a bogus claim. 2. That one letter is actionable harassment in your jurisdiction. 3. That you suffered some sort of harm as the result of the harassment. If you throw the letter in the trash can and never hear from them again you haven?t suffered any harm legally speaking.

Choker · 10-25-2003, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vicki
holy cow after rereading that *I* hardly understood what I was saying! lol

anyway, long story short, they do not hold a patent on hyperlinking to their device

We all know its absurd but the fact remains (as choker mentions) that many have received these letters.
I'll back a group that takes acacia to task on this but i'm hoping we can consolidate the efforts with the D11 gang

Great post Vicki. Yes Ithink the TGPers first priority should be in fighting the claim that they are in violation for mere hyperlinking. We should work with IMPA. I'm trying to get ahold of HG now. Some other ideas guys have thrown at me...

Getting template responses to the letters together so guys can respond to them.

If it comes to Acacia actually filing the lawsuits, getting all the required documents together for guys to use.

Making up detailed recommended course of action for guys being sued.

Setting up a attorney advice BBS for paying members of this "group". Part of the problem is not knowing what is what. If we went to a monthly membership thing, have a attorney answer unlimted questions from the paying members.

berg.the.red · 10-25-2003, 12:49 PM

Choker: i didn't say not to file anything. i simply said talking with an attorney would be a good idea. but from everything i've seen so far, those "information packets" probably wouldn't be called extortion. to file suit just on the information packet you would have to prove extortion.

but --if it comes down to acacia calling "linking" to either a site providing so called "patent infringing" materials, or linking to another site which in turn provides a link an "infringing activity" and wants a licensing fee is when it would be legal time. and it could be in the form of "joining in" with the IMPA action to invalidate the patent, or to get a specific ruling on the linking issue itself. there's lots of prior rulings concerning linkage to materials. a ruling of that sort in this specific instance would:

a) get TGP/List sites off the hook.
b) take a chunk out of what acacia is claiming their patent covers. it seems their patent has gone from the actual storage and transmission of some sort of content to now any method what-so-ever of somehow accessing that content. if it were approached legally just from the "linking and requiring a license fee to do so" point of view that WOULD take a little bite out of their bark.
c) teach `em don't fuck with Choker

another thing to consider would be how does one determine who has licensed the alledged patented technology and who hasn't? how would a TGP/List owner ever know if they're unknowingly "encouraging patent infringing activities" if they don't have a list of sites/companies which signed and paid? they would have to make that list "public" ...

Kingfish · 10-25-2003, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Choker

Great post Vicki. Yes Ithink the TGPers first priority should be in fighting the claim that they are in violation for mere hyperlinking. We should work with IMPA. I'm trying to get ahold of HG now. Some other ideas guys have thrown at me...

Getting template responses to the letters together so guys can respond to them.

If it comes to Acacia actually filing the lawsuits, getting all the required documents together for guys to use.

Making up detailed recommended course of action for guys being sued.

Setting up a attorney advice BBS for paying members of this "group". Part of the problem is not knowing what is what. If we went to a monthly membership thing, have a attorney answer unlimted questions from the paying members.

There is really not a lot a TGP can do other than arm themselves with knowledge. If you get the question answered about the linking then you have enough knowledge to make a decision Do I want to fight the validity of the patent itself or do I simply want to settle.

Kingfish · 10-25-2003, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by berg.the.red
Choker: i didn't say not to file anything. i simply said talking with an attorney would be a good idea. but from everything i've seen so far, those "information packets" probably wouldn't be called extortion. to file suit just on the information packet you would have to prove extortion.

but --if it comes down to acacia calling "linking" to either a site providing so called "patent infringing" materials, or linking to another site which in turn provides a link an "infringing activity" and wants a licensing fee is when it would be legal time. and it could be in the form of "joining in" with the IMPA action to invalidate the patent, or to get a specific ruling on the linking issue itself. there's lots of prior rulings concerning linkage to materials. a ruling of that sort in this specific instance would:

a) get TGP/List sites off the hook.
b) take a chunk out of what acacia is claiming their patent covers. it seems their patent has gone from the actual storage and transmission of some sort of content to now any method what-so-ever of somehow accessing that content. if it were approached legally just from the "linking and requiring a license fee to do so" point of view that WOULD take a little bite out of their bark.
c) teach `em don't fuck with Choker

another thing to consider would be how does one determine who has licensed the alledged patented technology and who hasn't? how would a TGP/List owner ever know if they're unknowingly "encouraging patent infringing activities" if they don't have a list of sites/companies which signed and paid? they would have to make that list "public" ...

I agree with most of what you say, but I think it is important to make a distinction the claim isn?t linking is a violation of their patent the claim is (I believe) your inducing someone else (your sponser) to infringe by linking to their gallery.

fiveyes · 10-25-2003, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Choker
I'm waiting on HG to post so I can call him. ...

Spike's number is 949-716-8080, if that helps.

berg.the.red · 10-25-2003, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kingfish
... enough knowledge to make a decision Do I want to fight the validity of the patent itself or do I simply want to settle.

actually --there's a third option: pull the plug. shut it down. i've been contemplating the fee structure and what it appears they're saying. just for providing "a link" to a site --i have to pay them 2% of gross/$1500 ?! how do i know "what" the sponsor site provides or what percentage of commisions are based on "streaming content"? or does that mean i need to sign up with Hustler and promote only them? sorry ... but IMO Hustler appears to be one of the companies that COULD have taken on this fight, HAD the resources AND the reputation to do it and they ... rolled over. and no offense to Hustler --y`all did what you thought was best ...

vicki · 10-25-2003, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kingfish

It is a different claim. The claim as I see it is (You the linker are inducing the direct infringer (the sponsor) to infringe. The inducement to infringe is a different legal theory than direct infringement. As I explained in another thread, I don?t think the linking case is that relevant for a couple of reasons 1. That cased didn?t deal with patent law 2. It was dealing with a different type of relationship between the linker and linkee.

Yes, its comparing apples and oranges
but the point is that I've been able to find no legal presidence, and when there is no legal pres ... they use the closest ones they can find along with existing laws.

there are no laws pertaining to hyperlinking to a site that is under litigation for patent infringement, nor is there a law that says hyperlinking to a site that IS infringeing, is illegal.

how bizarre that they (acacia) would even tread uncharted waters
actually imho after the research and findings i've seen, I doubt they will *shrug*

Choker · 10-25-2003, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fiveyes

Spike's number is 949-716-8080, if that helps.

I'm waiting on his call back now

fiveyes · 10-25-2003, 01:12 PM

Yeah, we can all agree that Acacia sucks hind tittie!

Unfortunately, patent law is one of the few areas where you have "reverse burden of proof". Basically, what that means is they don't have to prove you're infringing, just claim that you are, and then YOU have to prove that you AREN'T. Fucked up, I know, but that's how it works!

Choker · 10-25-2003, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Choker

I'm waiting on his call back now

Wait, who is Spike? I called this number and left a message 909-232-3396 Isn;t this HG's number?

fiveyes · 10-25-2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Choker

Wait, who is Spike? I called this number and left a message 909-232-3396 Isn;t this HG's number?

If HG = HomeGrown, Spike is who you want to talk with. If not, what does HG stand for?

fiveyes · 10-25-2003, 01:26 PM

Ahh, I see, that's JMMs number. DOH!

Try Spike's, he might be available and can speak for the defense team as well.

footguy · 10-25-2003, 01:31 PM

Hi Choker and all closely following this thread.

Granted I own a paysite but I would like to offer the following analogy:

This Acacia thing is just like buying a car in 1995 and having a company sue you 8 years later for the use of "bucket seats" in that car because they hold the patent. They could claim that you sat in a "bucket seat" while delivering pizza and made money from tips etc etc. In turn they could also sue the pizza chain for hiring people that had "bucket seats" in their cars to deliver.

Would it not make sense that all companies offering digital video transmission systems would license this technology so that the people using it would be free and clear of royalties?

I realize that many are thinking the same thing (albeit with different analogies) and that is why you are here and trying to organize. I see this as yet another very deliberate and concerted effort against the industry so our differences (between serving and linking) should probably take a back seat in order to overcome the overall onslaught. However, your effort.....your call.

If paysite people are welcome in this effort I will gladly participate and contribute.

Choker · 10-25-2003, 01:41 PM

http://ynotnews.ynotmasters.com/issu...203/page2.html

According to Acacia statement free sites are not going after free sites

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.

Now considering that Free sites are indeed getting these letters, this is sounding more and more like extortion to me.

Rob Berman: If a company contacted me alleging patent infringement, I would contact the company to find out exactly what I am doing to allegedly infringe the patent. Then I would determine if those acts are important to my business and what it would cost to stop the infringing activity.

Sounds like we all need to follow Acacias own advice on this. If we get a letter contact them and request in EXACT details how they think we are violating their patent.

Kingfish · 10-25-2003, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Choker
http://ynotnews.ynotmasters.com/issu...203/page2.html

According to Acacia statement free sites are not going after free sites

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.

Now considering that Free sites are indeed getting these letters, this is sounding more and more like extortion to me.

Rob Berman: If a company contacted me alleging patent infringement, I would contact the company to find out exactly what I am doing to allegedly infringe the patent. Then I would determine if those acts are important to my business and what it would cost to stop the infringing activity.

Sounds like we all need to follow Acacias own advice on this. If we get a letter contact them and request in EXACT details how they think we are violating their patent.

Someone asking you for money that has what they believe to be a legal claim against you is not extortion.

basschick · 10-25-2003, 02:01 PM

choker - what acacia told me on the phone is that free sites linking to free sites ARE inducing... and thereby liable to pay their license fees.

Quote:

Originally posted by Choker
http://ynotnews.ynotmasters.com/issu...203/page2.html

According to Acacia statement free sites are not going after free sites

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.

Now considering that Free sites are indeed getting these letters, this is sounding more and more like extortion to me.

Rob Berman: If a company contacted me alleging patent infringement, I would contact the company to find out exactly what I am doing to allegedly infringe the patent. Then I would determine if those acts are important to my business and what it would cost to stop the infringing activity.

Sounds like we all need to follow Acacias own advice on this. If we get a letter contact them and request in EXACT details how they think we are violating their patent.

Choker · 10-25-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kingfish

Someone asking you for money that has what they believe to be a legal claim against you is not extortion.

After they publicly state they will not seek payment from me? Besides it would be up to a jury to decide if it is or not.

basschick · 10-25-2003, 02:06 PM

true enough, but it still seems to be that disproving the validity of this patent would be the best solution.

wasn't radio a streaming entertainment medium for 100 years before acacia?

Choker · 10-25-2003, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by basschick
choker - what acacia told me on the phone is that free sites linking to free sites ARE inducing... and thereby liable to pay their license fees.

Yes but on this interview he stated the opposite. Purposely trying to confuse the industry? Telling them first they are not included then later telling them they are? Trying to divide and confuse everyone until at last they are scared and confused so they just sign the deal? Sounds like extortion to me. One thing anyone can tell you that has been in a civil trial........ANYTHING is possible and things can swing in a different direction in a second.

Choker · 10-25-2003, 02:10 PM

JMM where are you ? Check your messages and call me back please

Fabuleux · 10-25-2003, 02:16 PM

Choker, id didn't read the whole thread, but if you can organize this bunch of *%^( TGP owners into a team you can recieve a $100 donation from me.

footguy · 10-25-2003, 02:19 PM

Therein lies the problem KingFish.

We leave our houses every day thinking that if we don't steal, kill or hurt someone that we will be ok....just the very basic stuff.

You want to stream video so you go and buy an MS product or buy a REAL server. Where are you told that you may be held responsible if you use their system to stream video? Would it not be their responsibility to let you know if such a thing existed?

I am not at all questioning whether or not Acacia has a legal claim. I simply do not know. That could go either way. But to pull this out of the blue so many years after streaming started and to ask for retroactive damages is ridiculous. Especially when you were never told.

As for free site/TGP owners yes you may be able to get off the hook more easily it seems. Not being a lawyer I repeat..it SEEMS.
Long term you will be left with fewer and fewer sponsor choices, less innovation and higher and higher site prices. Think of what that means. It means two things:

1. Free sites will eventually have to close.

2. It means they want to return to the days when only a select few were producing any kind of adult content so as to control the hell out of them.

Just when the "big guys" start feeling comfortable, having gotten out of the Acacia thing, there will be yet another wave to further dilute them.

I sincerely believe this is yet another attempt from much much higher up than Acacia.

Kingfish · 10-25-2003, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Choker

After they publicly state they will not seek payment from me? Besides it would be up to a jury to decide if it is or not.

If you read the question that was asked.

Quote:

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?

What they were saying is that they were choosing not to go after free sites at that time. It doesn?t put them under any obligation not to go after free sites at some point the future. I think the idea was that they would get all of the sponsors to sign-up, and then the affiliates could not be inducing infringement because the sponsor was licensed. However, when most of the sponsors don?t sign up you have to look to easier pickings. Furthermore,

Quote:

Free adult entertainment sites that do use our technology to stream audio / video content on their free sites and also send traffic from those sites to affiliate programs do need a license.

So in other words their theory (based upon what other people that have free sites and received letters have posted in here) is if your free site is linking to another free site that is directly infringing by streaming video off their own domain then you are inducing their infringement by sending them traffic. Did they ever say they wouldn?t publically seek payment from you if you linked to a non-sponsor site that was a direct infringer? Even if they did that is an unenforceable promise that doesn?t mean much in court.

rooster · 10-25-2003, 02:26 PM

In an article I read on ynot Slimeballman err Berman says that those linking to video on another host (ie a paysite with plugins hosted elsewhere) are infringing, and that the percentage owed is based on subscription revenue.

"Our Webmaster royalty is based upon subscription revenue. "

http://ynotnews.ynotmasters.com/issu...403/page2.html

A tgp/link site has no revenue based on subscriptions, so where is the blood money amount pulled out of, his ass ?

With the extortion scheme they are trying now, virtually every site on the internet would be infringing on their patent.

I believe strongly that their strategy is just going to be target a small handful of tgps and try to get default judgments against guys that choose not to fight, then use the injunction to shut them down and scare other webmasters.

All they are doing is attempting anything to grab as much cash as they can till its invalidated.

Thats why they will keep delaying all court dates. Because a real court battle is the absolute last thing they want.

Acacia is no different than a common street theif, they just wear a white shirt and a tie.

media · 10-25-2003, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FightThisPatent

Article: Gary Kremen: 'If you are an affiliate, you are liable'

http://www.setgo.com/article.html?id...b384a9be3511bb

That article is nothing more than an attempt to sell sex.com traffic..

Media

footguy · 10-25-2003, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rooster
Acacia is no different than a common street theif, they just wear a white shirt and a tie. [/B]

And who can guarantee me that when this street theif wearing a tie is finally caught (for if there is any common sense left in this world this will tossed out) that my stolen $$$ will be returned?

Kingfish · 10-25-2003, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by footguy
Therein lies the problem KingFish.

We leave our houses every day thinking that if we don't steal, kill or hurt someone that we will be ok....just the very basic stuff.

You want to stream video so you go and buy an MS product or buy a REAL server. Where are you told that you may be held responsible if you use their system to stream video? Would it not be their responsibility to let you know if such a thing existed?

I am not at all questioning whether or not Acacia has a legal claim. I simply do not know. That could go either way. But to pull this out of the blue so many years after streaming started and to ask for retroactive damages is ridiculous. Especially when you were never told.

As for free site/TGP owners yes you may be able to get off the hook more easily it seems. Not being a lawyer I repeat..it SEEMS.
Long term you will be left with fewer and fewer sponsor choices, less innovation and higher and higher site prices. Think of what that means. It means two things:

1. Free sites will eventually have to close.

2. It means they want to return to the days when only a select few were producing any kind of adult content so as to control the hell out of them.

Just when the "big guys" start feeling comfortable, having gotten out of the Acacia thing, there will be yet another wave to further dilute them.

I sincerely believe this is yet another attempt from much much higher up than Acacia.

I agree that intellectual property law is screwed up. It is all weighed towards big business, it favors them and it is unfair. That is what they payed their lobbyists to get. The US law has always required the citizen to know the law. How does the old saying go ?ignorance of the law isn?t a defense to it? or something like that. I also believe it is a dirty, underhanded thing to do, squeezing free site webmasters, (95% of which) probably make under $500 per-month, but just because it is slimy underhanded and dirty doesn?t mean it is illegal. Big business is brutal lawsuits fly around all of the time. If you don?t like the system you have to vote the big business goons out. (BTW: they are in both political parties)

basschick · 10-25-2003, 02:36 PM

rooster, you're missing the point. if a tgp makes money by selling a sponsor with streaming media, acacia is saying you are making money off their patent because your sponsor has it.

Choker · 10-25-2003, 02:39 PM

Ok I am going to be honest and up front here.

I have until the end of November to accept a reduced license agreement or not. If I don't then Acacia can come after me for more and go retroactive on the license fees.

I will not sign a license aggreement

I will remove all links to moves, and delete all trades that have videos on them if I have too. I can survive without movies. I can and will do things to replace any loss of income. Fast. Within days not weeks.

If at that point Acacia still wants to come after me for past infringement, I will fight it. I doubt very seriously they would, if they did try their chances of winning are slim to none.

What I want here is a PLANNED course of action to clear my sites and sites like mine from having to pay the license fee. I do not want to fight the patent. I want to fight thier claim that I am violating their patent. That's it.

If we can pool our money and resources together and do this together that is great, if not that is fine also. If IMPA can accomadate my needs and my efforts help them at the same time, then this is even better.

What I think I need at this point

1. A letter from a attorney as a reply to their initial letter, asking for specifics of how I am violating their patent.

2. We will see

10-25-2003, 08:40 AM	#204
FATPad Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,693	Piling in with the people already fighting this does seem to be the best scenario. They already have the top patent firm in the country on this. F&R already knows this patent inside and out and has a ton of work already done. Starting with someone else seems...less than optimal. Dividing the industry even more into "small time people" vs "big time people" vs "Acacia" doesn't sound like a good idea. Pool the resources and get it taken care of once and for all. There has to be a way for the free site guys to pool with the D11 (or whatever they're called), help them fight the patent itself while also getting the advice they need to deal with these letters, and not spending extraneous money on things that don't concern them right now. Or maybe not. Don't know. Seems like with all this money that's flying around and a single common enemy it should be possible without fragmenting even more and playing even more into Acacia's hands. __________________ <a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>

10-25-2003, 10:36 AM	#206
basschick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: el lay, ca usa Posts: 2,540	why not get a high-end patent attorney with a lot of juice rather than an internet attorney? this is more a patent issue than an internet issue - after all, acacia is going after cable tv stations, too. it seems to me it might be a good idea to get a second suit against acacia going - besides, the second attorney might have an entirely different approach. __________________ Got Gay and For Women Traffic?

10-25-2003, 10:49 AM	#207
fiveyes Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 1,680	I certainly hope Choker works out something with the existing defense group, Acacia probably saw from the git'go that this industry was balkanized to the extend it couldn't make a united stand against it and that's why it focused on us first. My take on this is that Acacia is just one of many threats to the open standards we've benefited from on the Web. There'll be others down the road and there others that are watching right now to see exactly how we respond before they move in with their claims to a peice of the pie. Remember, the saying is not "there are good reasons to split up at times", it's "United we stand, divided we fall". __________________ <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>

10-25-2003, 11:07 AM	#208
Choker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orlando Posts: 9,024	I'm waiting on HG to post so I can call him. I still think the idea of a class action lawsuit for harassment and extortion is the best route to go for TGPers. 500 webmasters at $100 each would be $50k. That should be enough. Someone mentioned that rarely does the winner in a lawsuit like this get attorneys cost from the looser. Well in a lawsuit you have to sue for money. Why not sue for our attorney costs plus a little more. Whatever more we get put towards further defense? If we loose the case do we really loose it? I see all these posts "Acacia suck me" "Acacia fuck off" etc. Well if you really want to get that message to Acacia, a class Action lawsuit would do it pretty damned good IMO. __________________ ICQ me lets make a deal 116894466 Need dating, cam, or tube traffic? I got it.http://http://www.chokertraffic.com The Original http://www.chokertraffic.com/ Premium country pop-unders from $1.50 per k. I challenge you to compare this traffic to any other brokers. http://www.chokertraffic.com/public/tabs.php?t=o

10-25-2003, 11:42 AM	#209
berg.the.red Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Right Here. Right Now. Posts: 596	well ... harrassment could be a relative term. extortion would probably have to be proved. all they've REALLY done so far is sent out information packets "requesting" you to sign. it WOULD however be good to get a legal opinion on the matter for IF and/or WHEN people start getting socked with legal action. that way everyone has a good idea of what is involved, what legal recourse is available and what it'll cost. ya never know --if it's the IMPA bunch: they may be able to say flat out -> it's bullshit. it may also add a little fuel to their fire about what acacia is claiming and then re-claiming for the scope of their patent. __________________ Need a Dedicated Box with BALLS ? How about a Dedicated Server starting at just $49 per month.

10-25-2003, 08:34 AM	#201
Sharpie Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 438	Consider two things: 1. IMPA has already filed a counter suit against Acasia. There is a link to it somewhere in all this discussion. 2. Since your proposed suit does not go after the patent at all..... you are in essense saying :yes, Acasia has a patent, but it doesn't apply to us? That is not the main message. I realize you all feel 'out of the loop, because you have jumped on the bandwagon months after things have been going on. It would be a good idea if JMM would come to the board once again and give you an update - in detail - what has been going and and WHEN. They have been doing it as they have went along, but it has not gained your attention. NOW would be a good time for a detailed update!

10-25-2003, 11:52 AM	#213
dantheman OG Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,308	choker, call JMM This is too important for you not to. from JMM's post, "If anyone would like to talk to me about this, feel free to call my cell phone at 909-232-3396 and I will be happy to explain why we NEED your support, we need your $$$, but we DONT need yet ANOTHER organization." __________________ M3server.com VPS>Get your 2nd month free Ded>$100 off your 2nd month since 1996 icq-25135623 dannyh at~m3server DOT com

10-25-2003, 12:28 PM	#217
vicki Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Deep in the heart o' Texas Posts: 1,478	holy cow after rereading that I hardly understood what I was saying! lol anyway, long story short, they do not hold a patent on hyperlinking to their device We all know its absurd but the fact remains (as choker mentions) that many have received these letters. I'll back a group that takes acacia to task on this but i'm hoping we can consolidate the efforts with the D11 gang __________________ If at first you do succeed - try to hide your astonishment. HR merchant accounts from 3.45% solid biz since 98 victoriakozub AT gmail.com skype: victoria.kozub \| ICQ: 74296746

10-25-2003, 12:33 PM	#218
basschick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: el lay, ca usa Posts: 2,540	if the acacia patent was to be considered legit, still it is up to a court or representatives of a court to determine exactly what the patent did or didn't cover. acacia's claim is their patent is EXTREMELY broad, covering everything vaguely relating to streaming. if their patents were upheld fully, they would not be guilty of extortion, nor is one letter harrassment. showing the powers that be that the patents cannot exist in this wide a scope is very important, imo. having those patents either discredited, or more likely, fine-tuned so that there they cover clear smaller areas is the thing here as i see it. the person to do this would be a patent attorney. and there is no reason a second organization of webmasters cannot work with the first (impa). but if they were to do so, maybe they would all need a say on what attorney, what publicist, and what tack would be taken. impa is doing great work as far as i know, but the point is that i don't know that far. is the attorney they have chosen the best for this case? does he have extreme knowledge of patents and how they work, with strong secondary knowledge of the internet? what is his experience in these areas? same question about the publicist - i haven't seen much about this fight, and i've read about publicists that really get things noticed. seems like this would be good stuff to know before deciding whether you want to support an org with a program of action in this area. __________________ Got Gay and For Women Traffic?

10-25-2003, 12:37 PM	#219
Jimmer Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Waterloo Ont Posts: 878	I think that Chokers idea is better for the small webmaster, for a donation with IMPA you get access to their website, for a class-action suit you could end up getting $$$ from Acadia. __________________ 50% off the first 2 months hosting. Email be for a quote [email protected] We can supply up to 8 TB transfer.

10-25-2003, 12:49 PM	#223
berg.the.red Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Right Here. Right Now. Posts: 596	Choker: i didn't say not to file anything. i simply said talking with an attorney would be a good idea. but from everything i've seen so far, those "information packets" probably wouldn't be called extortion. to file suit just on the information packet you would have to prove extortion. but --if it comes down to acacia calling "linking" to either a site providing so called "patent infringing" materials, or linking to another site which in turn provides a link an "infringing activity" and wants a licensing fee is when it would be legal time. and it could be in the form of "joining in" with the IMPA action to invalidate the patent, or to get a specific ruling on the linking issue itself. there's lots of prior rulings concerning linkage to materials. a ruling of that sort in this specific instance would: a) get TGP/List sites off the hook. b) take a chunk out of what acacia is claiming their patent covers. it seems their patent has gone from the actual storage and transmission of some sort of content to now any method what-so-ever of somehow accessing that content. if it were approached legally just from the "linking and requiring a license fee to do so" point of view that WOULD take a little bite out of their bark. c) teach `em don't fuck with Choker another thing to consider would be how does one determine who has licensed the alledged patented technology and who hasn't? how would a TGP/List owner ever know if they're unknowingly "encouraging patent infringing activities" if they don't have a list of sites/companies which signed and paid? they would have to make that list "public" ... __________________ Need a Dedicated Box with BALLS ? How about a Dedicated Server starting at just $49 per month.

10-25-2003, 01:12 PM	#230
fiveyes Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 1,680	Yeah, we can all agree that Acacia sucks hind tittie! Unfortunately, patent law is one of the few areas where you have "reverse burden of proof". Basically, what that means is they don't have to prove you're infringing, just claim that you are, and then YOU have to prove that you AREN'T. Fucked up, I know, but that's how it works! __________________ <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>

10-25-2003, 01:26 PM	#233
fiveyes Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 1,680	Ahh, I see, that's JMMs number. DOH! Try Spike's, he might be available and can speak for the defense team as well. __________________ <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>

10-25-2003, 01:31 PM	#234
footguy Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: FL Posts: 30	Hi Choker and all closely following this thread. Granted I own a paysite but I would like to offer the following analogy: This Acacia thing is just like buying a car in 1995 and having a company sue you 8 years later for the use of "bucket seats" in that car because they hold the patent. They could claim that you sat in a "bucket seat" while delivering pizza and made money from tips etc etc. In turn they could also sue the pizza chain for hiring people that had "bucket seats" in their cars to deliver. Would it not make sense that all companies offering digital video transmission systems would license this technology so that the people using it would be free and clear of royalties? I realize that many are thinking the same thing (albeit with different analogies) and that is why you are here and trying to organize. I see this as yet another very deliberate and concerted effort against the industry so our differences (between serving and linking) should probably take a back seat in order to overcome the overall onslaught. However, your effort.....your call. If paysite people are welcome in this effort I will gladly participate and contribute.

10-25-2003, 01:41 PM	#235
Choker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orlando Posts: 9,024	http://ynotnews.ynotmasters.com/issu...203/page2.html According to Acacia statement free sites are not going after free sites 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. Now considering that Free sites are indeed getting these letters, this is sounding more and more like extortion to me. Rob Berman: If a company contacted me alleging patent infringement, I would contact the company to find out exactly what I am doing to allegedly infringe the patent. Then I would determine if those acts are important to my business and what it would cost to stop the infringing activity. Sounds like we all need to follow Acacias own advice on this. If we get a letter contact them and request in EXACT details how they think we are violating their patent. __________________ ICQ me lets make a deal 116894466 Need dating, cam, or tube traffic? I got it.http://http://www.chokertraffic.com The Original http://www.chokertraffic.com/ Premium country pop-unders from $1.50 per k. I challenge you to compare this traffic to any other brokers. http://www.chokertraffic.com/public/tabs.php?t=o

10-25-2003, 02:06 PM	#239
basschick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: el lay, ca usa Posts: 2,540	true enough, but it still seems to be that disproving the validity of this patent would be the best solution. wasn't radio a streaming entertainment medium for 100 years before acacia? __________________ Got Gay and For Women Traffic?

10-25-2003, 02:10 PM	#241
Choker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orlando Posts: 9,024	JMM where are you ? Check your messages and call me back please __________________ ICQ me lets make a deal 116894466 Need dating, cam, or tube traffic? I got it.http://http://www.chokertraffic.com The Original http://www.chokertraffic.com/ Premium country pop-unders from $1.50 per k. I challenge you to compare this traffic to any other brokers. http://www.chokertraffic.com/public/tabs.php?t=o

10-25-2003, 02:16 PM	#242
Fabuleux Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 2,543	Choker, id didn't read the whole thread, but if you can organize this bunch of *%^( TGP owners into a team you can recieve a $100 donation from me. __________________

10-25-2003, 02:19 PM	#243
footguy Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: FL Posts: 30	Therein lies the problem KingFish. We leave our houses every day thinking that if we don't steal, kill or hurt someone that we will be ok....just the very basic stuff. You want to stream video so you go and buy an MS product or buy a REAL server. Where are you told that you may be held responsible if you use their system to stream video? Would it not be their responsibility to let you know if such a thing existed? I am not at all questioning whether or not Acacia has a legal claim. I simply do not know. That could go either way. But to pull this out of the blue so many years after streaming started and to ask for retroactive damages is ridiculous. Especially when you were never told. As for free site/TGP owners yes you may be able to get off the hook more easily it seems. Not being a lawyer I repeat..it SEEMS. Long term you will be left with fewer and fewer sponsor choices, less innovation and higher and higher site prices. Think of what that means. It means two things: 1. Free sites will eventually have to close. 2. It means they want to return to the days when only a select few were producing any kind of adult content so as to control the hell out of them. Just when the "big guys" start feeling comfortable, having gotten out of the Acacia thing, there will be yet another wave to further dilute them. I sincerely believe this is yet another attempt from much much higher up than Acacia.

10-25-2003, 02:26 PM	#245
rooster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,384	In an article I read on ynot Slimeballman err Berman says that those linking to video on another host (ie a paysite with plugins hosted elsewhere) are infringing, and that the percentage owed is based on subscription revenue. "Our Webmaster royalty is based upon subscription revenue. " http://ynotnews.ynotmasters.com/issu...403/page2.html A tgp/link site has no revenue based on subscriptions, so where is the blood money amount pulled out of, his ass ? With the extortion scheme they are trying now, virtually every site on the internet would be infringing on their patent. I believe strongly that their strategy is just going to be target a small handful of tgps and try to get default judgments against guys that choose not to fight, then use the injunction to shut them down and scare other webmasters. All they are doing is attempting anything to grab as much cash as they can till its invalidated. Thats why they will keep delaying all court dates. Because a real court battle is the absolute last thing they want. Acacia is no different than a common street theif, they just wear a white shirt and a tie.

10-25-2003, 02:36 PM	#249
basschick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: el lay, ca usa Posts: 2,540	rooster, you're missing the point. if a tgp makes money by selling a sponsor with streaming media, acacia is saying you are making money off their patent because your sponsor has it. __________________ Got Gay and For Women Traffic?

10-25-2003, 02:39 PM	#250
Choker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orlando Posts: 9,024	Ok I am going to be honest and up front here. I have until the end of November to accept a reduced license agreement or not. If I don't then Acacia can come after me for more and go retroactive on the license fees. I will not sign a license aggreement I will remove all links to moves, and delete all trades that have videos on them if I have too. I can survive without movies. I can and will do things to replace any loss of income. Fast. Within days not weeks. If at that point Acacia still wants to come after me for past infringement, I will fight it. I doubt very seriously they would, if they did try their chances of winning are slim to none. What I want here is a PLANNED course of action to clear my sites and sites like mine from having to pay the license fee. I do not want to fight the patent. I want to fight thier claim that I am violating their patent. That's it. If we can pool our money and resources together and do this together that is great, if not that is fine also. If IMPA can accomadate my needs and my efforts help them at the same time, then this is even better. What I think I need at this point 1. A letter from a attorney as a reply to their initial letter, asking for specifics of how I am violating their patent. 2. We will see __________________ ICQ me lets make a deal 116894466 Need dating, cam, or tube traffic? I got it.http://http://www.chokertraffic.com The Original http://www.chokertraffic.com/ Premium country pop-unders from $1.50 per k. I challenge you to compare this traffic to any other brokers. http://www.chokertraffic.com/public/tabs.php?t=o