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

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.

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.

If you read the question that was asked.
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,
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.

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.

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

Media

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?

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)

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.

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

"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."


Heres my point, Berman in his own words says the webmaster license is based on subscription revenue.

A linksite/tgp has no subscription revenue. Therefore where would they get the percentage from.

Its absurd. They seem to be saying now:


they want 2% of revenue from all the money thhat free sites make from affiliate programs.

And how are they going to determine that. Not every affiliate program has video.


I think these guys are walking a very fine line of some highly illegal tactics.

Yep shows you how desperate sex.com is for money. I liked the part where he states to the effect that buying traffic from anyone but him and his partners will result in having your merchent account pulled, LOL

Yes sir. Well said and one can only agree.

However, I think that the "knowing the law" argument held true in simpler times. Today it has reached a point where you can ask an attorney something, receive an answer, proceed according to his advice and still be found guilty. Did you not try to "know the law??"
________________________________________________
Footguy's definition of the law:

The will of the most powerful party at any given moment.
________________________________________________

As for the political parties, I am through voting. You mentioned one good reason above but there are others too. Perhaps more serious even.

Seeing that most have , in my opinion erroneously, chosen to focus on whether they have a free or pay site in this thread, I will be moving on.

Best of luck to all with this.......We are ALL going to need it.

I would also add you need an analysis from your attorney as to if linking to sponsor hosted movie galleries that you receive compensation for could be seen as inducing infringement.

Choker,

I say the hell with waiting to collect a *somewhat* defense fund and go ahead and do it. Although I agree with everyone that all of this Acacia crap sux I want someone to look into the patent legalities of linking to sites and if that means paying a lawfirm so be it. I've already stuck it out in front of 100,000 uniques a day that this is going on and that I plan on pulling all vids if Acacia does in fact own the internet. I have no plans on helping them pull this off. The money can always be refunded should it not be needed.

hummm ... from their web posted agreement ( of course --we know what acacias word is actually worth ... )

Our Webmaster license covers audio/video content that is accessed via the Webmaster?s web site, regardless of where the content is hosted. The royalty is based upon subscription revenues from the Webmaster?s pay sites, and exit traffic revenue from the Webmaster?s free sites that contain audio/video content. To review a copy of our standard Webmaster License Agreement click here. For instructions on completing the Webmaster License Agreement, click here.

kinda sounds like sex.com isn't as safe as they claim. they pay you for traffic you now have exit traffic revenue ...

ya know --that thought crossed my mind a couple times too. if you can't legislate --litigate

what if you went back to them and said: "Oh ... so sorry. exactly WHICH links in specific are you talking about, and we'll gladly remove them ...". put the burden of which links they're claiming are in violation. and of course --they'll have to check `em all too that way. ever single one ...

Choker ya got my support, and what money I can send (at least the $100, but hopefuly more).

ICQ Me 2 9 4 9 0 6 0 1 8

Fight these %$%%* :321GFY :BangBang: :ak47:

Before we go too far with this concept of suing for extortion, you all should note that the threat of a civil lawsuit is not considered to be extortion. If it was, that would basically put all attorneys out of business. When the claim is bogus, these threats can really seem unfair or illegal, but in the eyes of the law, that's what the jury is for. So maybe I just saved you a fat retainer that some lawyer would charge to tell you that.

Webattorney,

I believe most of this thread is looking for a direction to take to find legal information pertaining to linking to sites and whether any patent law can hold anyone liable for doing such. Personally, I want the best information available(paid or not) before I even answer Acacia as to their infringement letter.

Yep we are all just digging here. I think it's pretty clear that guys are willing to open thier wallets to help.

How about we simply create a membership site with a members only BBS board where others can share strategy's, court appearances (when they start) etc. To be a member you have to pony up minimum $100. When someone shows a need for money to defend themselves, they apply for it. If thier defense goes to further our cause then we approve the money. We vote on it. Every member gets a vote. However, since money is everything, the more you contribute the more votes you have. Give $100 you get one vote, give $1000 you get 10 votes. Not only would this be a true democracy based on what you contribute, it would attract donations from everyone in this business, not just TGPers. Sort of like a clearinghouse of funds for defense against this threat.

That would be bad how? :winkwink:

Hmm, KimmyKim could set us up a epassporte account to hold and distribute the funds. I could get PPK to code the scripts. There could be full accounting of all funds. Every members contribution would need to be known to the other members. I think it is important to see who is contributing and how much. Even gallery makers. This affects them also.

Lots of people can say they hate me, but none can say I have ever ripped anyone off. The same can be said for KimmyKim. We could limit the account access to her and me. When someone needs funds for defense and the group approves, then KimmyKim could expedite epassporte cutting and mailing a check for it. Of course joeblow could not come out of the blue and request money. he would have to show documentation. Phone calls with his attorney, firm court dates and strategies etc. this would all be needed before the group voted on whether to help fund his case or not. Thoughts on this anyone?

Yes it was, but I think Acacia's patents cover the digital version of streaming technology. I'm not sure how analog technology works but I don't think it compresses the audio before sending it over the intended medium. Digital technology compresses the audio/video stream, transfers it over the Internet and decompresses it at the other end. This is what Acacia's patents cover. Either way, I still think Acacia is stifling technology and entrepeneurship by having almost every single company using the Internet pay royalty fees.

Dick SHoke

I'm comfortable with this. I'd definately donate some money
under this scenario.

Cool. I think many will balk at the idea of whoever donates the most gets more votes, but if you think it thru, if acmeporn donates $2000 and later is sued should he not have higher priority in being helped by the group? Not to mention that the first guys getting sued we need to support the most as our cases will be based on thiers. What this plan would do is basically gather the funds now that we know we will need later. If IMPA has a specific need for a certain amount of money for a specific cause, and the group votes on it and approves it, they get the money for that cause.

This could be basically a defense fund for adult webmasters for any cause that the group feels threatens their business. Acacia will not be the last threat I fear.

hmmm, maybe even add a second secure BBS board by monthly subscription of say $24.95 a month with unlimited legal advice from a attorney? How many times a month does every webmaster have legal questions only a attorney can answer? Sorry for all the posts my brain is in Turbo mode at the moment.

FYI Since this isnt Adult you can use Pay pal, also I think its a great idea a pay board to ask a lawyer questions as long as he answers more than "you would have to talk me privately about that".

You will probably have a difficult time finding an attorney that will give non-generic advice on a discussion board. There are all kinds of things they have to worry about in that setting.

Aww, c'mon. You know we're a necessary evil. Nobody likes the sharks until you need to sick us on your enemy. Like they say, the only good lawyer...is YOUR lawyer! :winkwink:

Well if it was a pay board, the attorney would be getting paid for answering questions. So he would have to or we would fire him and find another one

Choker,

You are wandering from the topic here. I agree... set up the fund. But, the first set of business is to get some good legal information on linking to sites on the internet and if patents can hold everyone liable. Everyone knows that legal advice is only as good as the $$$ that are behind it. Don't even one lawyer type attempt to discredit that. I don't have one problem at all with majority donors having more voting rights. It will just give more enthusiasm to be in that group. There has to be a way to validate the donors though to make sure the oppostion is not in the group.

Are you out of the Orlando office? Would a attorney such as yourself be a part of something like this? Not asking for free advice. Paid to answer questions on a board. The amount of cases one one get as a spinoff would be in addition to part of the monthly subscription fee.

Well if we set this up, I guess the first item to be voted on would be how much money and to whom we pay to research this. But remember with a secure BBS board the members that are already doing research would have a organized format to post their findings. thing is I would think it would take the first free site being sued and the outcome about linking to sites. We could put a million bucks into researching it, but the real test would be the first site to go to court on this specific point. that is why it would be imperitve that the fund help the first guy that goes to court and uses this as a defense.

Choker.. there is a private board already in existence. ICQ me and I'll give you info.

You are starting to play IMPA. That's not what this started as. Where's your direction of cleaning the slate for yourself as I am looking to do? I disagree with the theory that the *Big Picture* is what is necessary in a situation like this. Sometimes it's best to dismantle small parts of the puzzle and disprove that they don't fit in that *Big Picture*. If you are looking to play lawyer fund for the general world by all means put your money in IMPA.

I STRONGLY disagree with you. The reason I have not donated to IMPA is because I want control of where my donations go to. The reason people do not donate to IMPA like they should is because they have no idea who is involved and where their money is going. By the repsonses I am getting in this thread, is that there are many interests and many different ways to fight ACACIA. NOT JUST THE sites that are getting funds to fight that are part of IMPA. Will IMPA fund the first free site that gets sued? Can you GUARANTEE that in writing? I'm not trying to compete with IMPA or anyone else. I want to do something here, but blindly giving money to IMPA is not a option for me. Sorry

Johnny Poker how are you? Have you heard much about what webmasters are doing out on the west coast about this. A friend of mine in Toronto told me he has recieved 3 letters. If you get that many letters, is a claim in Canada that strong of a case or just fishing. He has his attorny looking into it.

Come on guys, I need feedback on this before I get the ball rolling. I am volunterring my time on this. I need opinions before I get PPK on the coding of this. We have most of the code cores already so the expense of this will be minimal. After the initial setup costs, which will be fully disclosed BTW, any time money is spent it would have to be cleared by the group first. I really think this is the best route to go. This plan would give EVERYONE a voice in what thier money is spent on in defense of their business.

No response to my post about a board that already exists... etc. so I'm outta here.. good luck man. You can do it! :thumbsup