Should a content provider make the license so the licensee can transfer it? - GoFuckYourself.com

Paul Markham · 03-28-2008, 12:10 AM

Who should control the transfer of a license on content. The content owner or the license owner?

So if the license owner wants to get out of the business, sell the domain or sell the company he can sell/transfer the license without getting back to the content owner.

Maybe the option should be available for an extra charge, but prise is not the issue, that can be negotiated. It's more about the rights.

Paul Markham · 03-28-2008, 12:22 AM

One vote for both camps.

uno · 03-28-2008, 12:30 AM

you left out the option for both.

IMHO the license should always be open open for xfer.

rowan · 03-28-2008, 12:39 AM

Jesus H. Christ, are we STILL on about this shit?

Paul Markham · 03-28-2008, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uno

you left out the option for both.

IMHO the license should always be open open for xfer.

The licensee and the content owner control the transfer? Too messy.

NinjaSteve · 03-28-2008, 12:44 AM

I think the license should be transferable at no extra charge.

papill0n · 03-28-2008, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowan

Jesus H. Christ, are we STILL on about this shit?

Paul Markham · 03-28-2008, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowan

Jesus H. Christ, are we STILL on about this shit?

It's raised it's ugly head again at my end.

Tempest · 03-28-2008, 12:54 AM

Do whatever the fuck you want.. it's your business... if it appears you're losing money, customers etc. because of the way you run your business, then change it so that you don't... If you can't grasp that simple concept then you should be running a business.

I've believed for years now that content producers fucked themselves over and are in the state they're in because most were too stupid to adjust their model to the realities of the online business.

Penny24Seven · 03-28-2008, 12:55 AM

We have been talking about this, I don't mind if they sell their business and move on but I would like to have the content stay with the site it was sold to.
If they wanted to change domains and remove it from the original and put it on a new one I do not see a problem if they let me know.
We are working on a small group that really does not compete with each other and start our first non-exclusive deal.

L-Pink · 03-28-2008, 01:02 AM

Paul, I think you should do whatever you want. Transfer, not transfer, transfer for $50 ... $500 ... $5,000 Take it a case at a time or blanket policy.

Just be decisive and spare us your waffling.

And polling a forum tilted to content users will get you obvious answers.

baddog · 03-28-2008, 01:08 AM

What do you think the popular vote will be?

GrouchyAdmin · 03-28-2008, 01:11 AM

I'm torn. People trivialize others' work. If you've been paid for an exclusive set, well, there's that, and obviously, no. If it's something you were selling semi-exclusive, or open, then, if they transfer it, you should be able to pick up at least a little touch more; call it a '2257 ownership maintenance fee', I suppose.

From my perspective: Software moves to new servers, new licenses, transfers, usually cost at least something for the company to update the books and licensing. I don't see why media content should be any different.

Paul Markham · 03-28-2008, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

Do whatever the fuck you want.. it's your business... if it appears you're losing money, customers etc. because of the way you run your business, then change it so that you don't... If you can't grasp that simple concept then you should be running a business.

I've believed for years now that content producers fucked themselves over and are in the state they're in because most were too stupid to adjust their model to the realities of the online business.

No it's your business as well. Contrary to what you think content rules the business. Because it's what brings in the money or does not.

And it seems this business as a whole is losing money and customers because of the way it's being run.

Tempest · 03-28-2008, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Contrary to what you think content rules the business. Because it's what brings in the money or does not.

And it's that belief that has caused so many of the content producers to fail.. Traffic is what rules this business.. 90% of what everyone does in this business on the internet is to generate traffic.. The ones that aren't spending that much time generating traffic are the ones that fail.. The ONLY people that really care about content are the content producers and those that run quality (a small minority) paysites... Everyone else only cares about "bulk"...

L-Pink · 03-28-2008, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

And it's that belief that has caused so many of the content producers to fail.. Traffic is what rules this business.. 90% of what everyone does in this business on the internet is to generate traffic.. The ones that aren't spending that much time generating traffic are the ones that fail.. The ONLY people that really care about content are the content producers and those that run quality (a small minority) paysites... Everyone else only cares about "bulk"...

This content producer agrees 98%

.

Paul Markham · 03-28-2008, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

And it's that belief that has caused so many of the content producers to fail.. Traffic is what rules this business.. 90% of what everyone does in this business on the internet is to generate traffic.. The ones that aren't spending that much time generating traffic are the ones that fail.. The ONLY people that really care about content are the content producers and those that run quality (a small minority) paysites... Everyone else only cares about "bulk"...

The day surfers spend money to be traffic is the day I will agree with you.

The entire porn industry has followed the traffic and volume trend for decades.

They thought more titles on more shelves or more surfers looking at more sites was the key. Sadly we now have a business with a product that is so great Tube sites are looked on as a better source than paying. Not because they won't pay, it's because paying for it is not worth it.

The buyers do not care about bulk, they care about value for money.

That's the last I will say on this and anyone who thinks the way this business has been run for the last 15 years is the right way is clearly deluding themselves.

Paul Markham · 03-28-2008, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

This content producer agrees 98%

.

What happened to your content business, could not get enough traffic or could not sell to enough of it? You now work for a company with great content.

crockett · 03-28-2008, 02:01 AM

IMO.. it should be as fair as possible to both parties. The only way to do that, is to either license to the domain or to the affiliate program.

At that point the original buyer of the content can legally sell the site with out hassles, with the content assuming he doesn't try to re-use the content after he's sold the site.

The content producer should get a "reasonable" fee for transferring the license. No reasonable doesn't mean charging full price for the content or even half the price. It should be just that "reasonable" amount to cover your time and money spent having to update your records or to reissue a licence to the new owner.

After Shock Media · 03-28-2008, 02:01 AM

Licenses should be transferable via a fee, however only one person can hold this license at any time. I.E. you can not transfer it to 4 people and pay a smaller fee to do so as this makes you a wholesaler.

Licenses should also be able to be written to a company. If that company itself is sold it should have no barring on the license itself in that case and the license should be still valid. Again limited to that one business having the license only. This should be without fee typically with some exceptions I feel.

There should also be a separate license for design purposes. This one could perhaps allow for some resale of designs. Logically this type of license should cost more.

I also feel another license that is more promotional based is needed. Some providers may claim a set is semi exclusive and will only be sold say for example 10 times. Then they give the buyers full affiliate use. When one large program buys a license and then 9 other small guys buy the same, guess who just got short end of stick.

I guess I am saying is there should not just be a blanket license. There needs to be licenses for a wide range of uses as the markets change.

Tempest · 03-28-2008, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The buyers do not care about bulk, they care about value for money.

100% wrong... and until you understand what they're actually looking for you're doomed to continue with your flawed logic..

I never said the way the business IS run or HAS been run is the way it should be run.

Paul Markham · 03-28-2008, 05:38 AM

So the original license can be transferred by the licensee if they sell the company, domains programs etc?

The content owner can have a fee for doing so and that's it. Not veto or charge what he decides.

Got you. Anyone not agree with this?

Paul Markham · 03-28-2008, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

IMO.. it should be as fair as possible to both parties. The only way to do that, is to either license to the domain or to the affiliate program.

At that point the original buyer of the content can legally sell the site with out hassles, with the content assuming he doesn't try to re-use the content after he's sold the site.

The content producer should get a "reasonable" fee for transferring the license. No reasonable doesn't mean charging full price for the content or even half the price. It should be just that "reasonable" amount to cover your time and money spent having to update your records or to reissue a licence to the new owner.

And what if the license seller ignores you, the license buyer thinks you should do it for free and the original license was broken?

Anyway who CONTROLS it, the licensee or the content owner. Who has the final say?

crockett · 03-28-2008, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

And what if the license seller ignores you, the license buyer thinks you should do it for free and the original license was broken?

Anyway who CONTROLS it, the licensee or the content owner. Who has the final say?

Now you are trying to just use this topic, to dig up what was already old news. You asked for opinions on what others thought a licence should be. Now you are trying to twist this topic in to your other issue.

suprise..suprise I guess

Paul Markham · 03-28-2008, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Now you are trying to just use this topic, to dig up what was already old news. You asked for opinions on what others thought a licence should be. Now you are trying to twist this topic in to your other issue.

suprise..suprise I guess

No, it's a very valid point. a license is about keeping to the terms and conditions of the license. Or are you saying one side can ignore them and the other side sticks to them?

And I brought it back on course.

Anyway who CONTROLS it, the licensee or the content owner. Who has the final say?

Come on guys aren't you bright enough to see through me?

CarlosTheGaucho · 03-28-2008, 07:44 AM

I take non transferrable as default, or say non transferrable without an agreement of the producer.

If it's a same person that closes shop but wants to use it on another site of theirs - than it's ok. It's a per website license so why would I care if it's xxx.com or xxx2.com as far as it's still one paysite of the same licensee.

If the person closes shop and would want to offer the video to someone else - then it's a problem and I would insist on the new interested one to deal with me directly, because I own the copyrights and the license I granted can't be transfered by the licensee to a third party.

pornguy · 03-28-2008, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrouchyAdmin

I'm torn. People trivialize others' work. If you've been paid for an exclusive set, well, there's that, and obviously, no. If it's something you were selling semi-exclusive, or open, then, if they transfer it, you should be able to pick up at least a little touch more; call it a '2257 ownership maintenance fee', I suppose.

From my perspective: Software moves to new servers, new licenses, transfers, usually cost at least something for the company to update the books and licensing. I don't see why media content should be any different.

Problem with the little extra, is that often, and most times when someone chooses to sell and get out, they dont have that much left any way. Most people DONT sell at the top of their game.

CarlosTheGaucho · 03-28-2008, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

I also feel another license that is more promotional based is needed. Some providers may claim a set is semi exclusive and will only be sold say for example 10 times. Then they give the buyers full affiliate use. When one large program buys a license and then 9 other small guys buy the same, guess who just got short end of stick.

I guess I am saying is there should not just be a blanket license. There needs to be licenses for a wide range of uses as the markets change.

exactly, the key is that license doesn't mean to own, but it's a right to commercially or non commercially exploit in a specific and specified way.

If I own something then of course I can add it as a part of my property and sell it once I am selling my property.

But I can't add into my property licensed products, because it's a property of someone else, I paid a license fee and I have a right to exploit it in a way specified by the license agreement, but I don't own it, and therefore I have to talk to the licensor in case I would want to transfer the license.

faxxaff · 03-28-2008, 08:05 AM

I can't understand why a webmaster would lease licensed content in the first place. I would always buy content so that I become the owner of it. Anything else is BS imho.

Paul Markham · 03-28-2008, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

Problem with the little extra, is that often, and most times when someone chooses to sell and get out, they dont have that much left any way. Most people DONT sell at the top of their game.

Precisely and I wondered how long it would take someone to think it through.

So here is my answer.

I WILL NEVER, REPEAT NEVER ALLOW A LICENSE HOLDER THE RIGHT TO TRANSFER OR SELL THE LICENSE.

For those hard of reading.

I WILL NEVER, REPEAT NEVER ALLOW A LICENSE HOLDER THE RIGHT TO TRANSFER OR SELL THE LICENSE.

I will also never transfer a license. The new licensee buys the new and latest license. Transfer is not even an option.

The reasons are so blindingly obvious and over on JBM they spotted it in minutes. Do you think someone at the bottom of their game, might be needing money and getting out of the business should have the rights to sell the license?

Do you think someone like Zango, Megarotic or someone doing both might think it worth offering a few dollars more to get hold of the content? Assuming seller bothers to look further than the $$$.

Same company, same domains, just a totally different business model. And all within the license.

Yes is an industry like ours with all the stand up brotherly love and caring for one another I'm sure you guys want the content rights in the hands of someone who is getting out.

New license? In the changing days we change the license to suit the times. We expect new buyers to sign the new license.

Cost, down to us. If they are going to be regular clients then fine, if not what's wrong with making money. This is a business.

Veto on who can get a new license? Too fucking right we have a veto. It's our future and our past customers future we are protecting. Amazing how many don't care about where content goes so long as they can make few bucks as they leave the business.

Goes to show why we do it the way we do.

Paul Markham · 03-28-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarlosTheGaucho

exactly, the key is that license doesn't mean to own, but it's a right to commercially or non commercially exploit in a specific and specified way.

If I own something then of course I can add it as a part of my property and sell it once I am selling my property.

But I can't add into my property licensed products, because it's a property of someone else, I paid a license fee and I have a right to exploit it in a way specified by the license agreement, but I don't own it, and therefore I have to talk to the licensor in case I would want to transfer the license.

You see some people think for $5 they own it.

Lykos · 03-28-2008, 10:36 AM

We are doing it free of charge,since we started,it's stupid to charge again if company change owner or if owner makes new company.

Paul Markham · 03-28-2008, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lykos

We are doing it free of charge,since we started,it's stupid to charge again if company change owner or if owner makes new company.

But you still remain in charge.

Also stops the previous licensee selling it and making money from it.

tony286 · 03-28-2008, 12:51 PM

To me if they sell the whole site, then no charge. What I would do is congratulate them in their purchase let them know I was the original creator of that content. If you ever need more I have tons for sale.

If it sells they will need updates.

Paul Markham · 03-28-2008, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

To me if they sell the whole site, then no charge. What I would do is congratulate them in their purchase let them know I was the original creator of that content. If you ever need more I have tons for sale.

If it sells they will need updates.

So would you let the licensee control the sale or would you control the sale of your license?

That's what this thread was all about and a lesson to those who think someone who could be failed, short of money and getting out of the business is the best person to control that sale. Which is what 11 people think and many more I suspect.

What if the largest bid for the program and content comes from Zango or Megarotic? They will run a site within the terms of the original license that might of been written before spyware and Tubes were around. Do people expect a person getting out of the business to turn down the largest bid because it suits them?

There are content providers who do allow the licensee to to transfer the license, are you one of them? Thanks for the spam, neither of you answered the question while spamming. Maybe I should go search for your policy.

To others. The new buyer is not getting it for free, the selling licensee is charging him for it. His concern is the money. Not the person I would give the transfer rights to.

Strange how the flaming and debate has stopped since I explained why we have our policy.

Paul Markham · 03-29-2008, 12:32 AM

Where are all the content providers telling us that licensees can't transfer a license?

Scared to ley buyers know they could find all the content that bought on a Tube site or used by Zango to spread spyware because they do not control their licenses as well as they should?

Christina Muller · 03-29-2008, 01:13 AM

Hi Paul,

I know your having some bad experiences but I think its like this.

It doesnt matter what everyone else is doing,simply write your contracts to suit how you wish to do business,make them as simple or as complex as you wish and the buyer will or will not buy from you.

If you prepare the contracts correct with detail you should never have a problem and if you do you simply take legal action or you at least will be in the position to do so.

Nothing difficult about contracts if done correctly

Matt 26z · 03-29-2008, 01:15 AM

If the license belongs to a business entity and that business gets sold, it is the business, not the license that is being transfered to a new individual. The licensee is actually the same before and after the sale. Right?

basschick · 03-29-2008, 01:16 AM

regarding license transfers, what i'd like to see would be that content license would be fully transferable with 2 conditions:

1. a document to show that the business is under new ownership and that all copies of all content under the license to be transferred have been removed from the original licensee's websites entirely.

2. content owner must approve new licensor after the new licensor affirms that he/she can fulfill all terms of the license.

Christina Muller · 03-29-2008, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

If the license belongs to a business entity and that business gets sold, it is the business, not the license that is being transfered to a new individual. The licensee is actually the same before and after the sale. Right?

Matt it depends...every company should write thier contracts to suit how they wish to do business there are no fixed rules.

I have some very very complex contracts,the content owner selling the product has a choice how they wish to issue a licence agreement.

Its not rocket science its easy if done correctly

gideongallery · 03-29-2008, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So would you let the licensee control the sale or would you control the sale of your license?

That's what this thread was all about and a lesson to those who think someone who could be failed, short of money and getting out of the business is the best person to control that sale. Which is what 11 people think and many more I suspect.

What if the largest bid for the program and content comes from Zango or Megarotic? They will run a site within the terms of the original license that might of been written before spyware and Tubes were around. Do people expect a person getting out of the business to turn down the largest bid because it suits them?

There are content providers who do allow the licensee to to transfer the license, are you one of them? Thanks for the spam, neither of you answered the question while spamming. Maybe I should go search for your policy.

To others. The new buyer is not getting it for free, the selling licensee is charging him for it. His concern is the money. Not the person I would give the transfer rights to.

Strange how the flaming and debate has stopped since I explained why we have our policy.

paul a licience is a two way contract

you gave them certain rights

if the licience grants such a right, then you have a legal obligation to honor it, just like the user has an equal responsiblity.

My only problem with your little tirad is when pornada offered to fix the "liciening to an individual problem" you turned him down.

And your ultimate solution both fee again and new licienc fee for scope violation instead of just licience fee for scope violation proves you were the same hard ass to the end.

Lee · 03-29-2008, 05:33 AM

Question for the slightly ignorant (i.e. me). Do you allow the licensee to be a company? And if so, what if the company is taken over so to speak and kept on in the same name?

Or do you ensure the licensee is an individual(s)?

Paul Markham · 03-29-2008, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christina Muller

Hi Paul,

I know your having some bad experiences but I think its like this.

It doesnt matter what everyone else is doing,simply write your contracts to suit how you wish to do business,make them as simple or as complex as you wish and the buyer will or will not buy from you.

If you prepare the contracts correct with detail you should never have a problem and if you do you simply take legal action or you at least will be in the position to do so.

Nothing difficult about contracts if done correctly

Very true and 99 times out of 100 works a treat. Sadly it's when people ignore the license that we have problems. No matter what is written into the license it needs both parties to stick to the terms and conditions. 1% think the license is for the other 99%. Who can be fucked.

Paul Markham · 03-29-2008, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

If the license belongs to a business entity and that business gets sold, it is the business, not the license that is being transfered to a new individual. The licensee is actually the same before and after the sale. Right?

So you have no problem with a guy getting out of the business and selling up to Zango or Megarotic or a company doing both. Allowing them to have all the content to give away for free. You may think that's fine, we don't. We protect our clients and ourselves far better.

Recently someone was flaming me in a thread about content providers selling to Zango. Your solution could mean a guy getting out the business selling to them.

Paul Markham · 03-29-2008, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by basschick

regarding license transfers, what i'd like to see would be that content license would be fully transferable with 2 conditions:

1. a document to show that the business is under new ownership and that all copies of all content under the license to be transferred have been removed from the original licensee's websites entirely.

2. content owner must approve new licensor after the new licensor affirms that he/she can fulfill all terms of the license.

Can the content owner Veto the sale?

The situation is some of the licenses were written as long as 8 years ago. Todays Internet is nothing like it was then. So licenses have changed. Megarotic or Zango or a similar company can buy a company and use the content within the terms of the license and severely harm the content providers other clients and the content provider.

Paul Markham · 03-29-2008, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee

Question for the slightly ignorant (i.e. me). Do you allow the licensee to be a company? And if so, what if the company is taken over so to speak and kept on in the same name?

Or do you ensure the licensee is an individual(s)?

We license to both in different cases. We sell a license to many companies, like Hustler. They pay a different price for it and it's a magazine license. On the Internet, in most cases we license to an individual who owns the company, if a company is involved. It clearly states the license is not to be sold or transferred if the company is sold. That is for us to do. We stick to the terms of our license and do not allow others to ignore them.

The reasons are simple and stated above.

If people want to buy content from a company with less care over their content that is their decision. Is it wise to buy from a company who will allow someone to sell to a company who will use the content in a way that renders the content worthless?

The question is simple. Who is best to protect the long term interests of the other buyers of the content. A person on the way out and probably looking for the most money possible or a person who is staying in the business and has his and his customers long term interests to protect?

Sorry if that decision will cost you a couple of thousand bucks as you leave the business, but we're not shifting on it. Because it could cost us and others more. Sadly we are in a business where ethics are not a prime concern of many.

Lee · 03-29-2008, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Sorry if that decision will cost you a couple of thousand bucks as you leave the business, but we're not shifting on it. Because it could cost us and others more. Sadly we are in a business where ethics are not a prime concern of many.

Oh its no worries to me, Im not leaving the biz and it doesnt massively affect me anyway, but I was just curious.

Paul Markham · 03-29-2008, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee

Oh its no worries to me, Im not leaving the biz and it doesnt massively affect me anyway, but I was just curious.

Glad you're staying. But it could effect you and others what people do with content. I'm assuming you buy or use or send traffic to a site with non exclusive content. How would you like to see all the non exclusive content being given away for free on a site like Megarotic? It can happen with exclusive, but the extra money paid gives them that right.

This is the risk we run by expecting a person leaving the business to care about those remaining.

Brujah · 03-29-2008, 07:45 AM

The original question was "Should the content provider make the license so the licensee can transfer it?"

Yes, but with veto option by the licensor if he reasonably feels the new licensee will cause harm to his business in some way or another. Based upon what Paul is trying to argue in this thread that sounds reasonable.

However, Paul is only using that as an excuse if you haven't noticed. Otherwise, he would have been agreeable in the past for a legitimate new licensee to be allowed a transfer of license for a small maintenance fee perhaps. He isn't doing that at all. His motives aren't about saving the content or saving the industry. It's purely motivated by greed, which is fine but odd that he won't just come out and admit that.

After Shock Media · 03-29-2008, 03:18 PM

Ok Paul since you keep going there, can a licensee holder get a refund if you allow the sets to appear on some tube site, zango, megarotic, and others? It would only be fair right?

My only real issue is that you still try to pass off a license built for 1996 to users in 2008. Well that and despite what you said, when I mailed in a license I never got back a signed copy so I trashed the content several years ago. Can I now prove this no, but it did happen.

You have the option of making it so that there are other rules to keep everyone happy and prevent your main argument from happening. You can easily limit what can be done with the license and content. This means you can easily prevent certain usage. For instance I could get your content licensed, place it on a single url, allow free access and promote zango. In the event only so much can be used for promo purposes, only requirement I would need to have happen is have the surfer give me something of value for access, such as an email address.

This is really nothing against you either. This is about keeping customers happy and not being a dick. Compromise and common sense is some of the best customer relations a business owner can employ. However it is your business and your free to destroy it as much as you want in regards to internet buyers.

View Poll Results: Who should control the transfer of a license?
The content owner.	10	29.41%
The licensee.	16	47.06%
The option should be available for an extra charge.	8	23.53%
Voters: 34. You may not vote on this poll

03-28-2008, 12:10 AM	#1
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Should a content provider make the license so the licensee can transfer it? Who should control the transfer of a license on content. The content owner or the license owner? So if the license owner wants to get out of the business, sell the domain or sell the company he can sell/transfer the license without getting back to the content owner. Maybe the option should be available for an extra charge, but prise is not the issue, that can be negotiated. It's more about the rights. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

03-28-2008, 12:22 AM	#2
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	One vote for both camps. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

03-28-2008, 12:30 AM	#3
uno RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: NYC Area Posts: 18,450	you left out the option for both. IMHO the license should always be open open for xfer. __________________ -uno icq: 111-914 CrazyBabe.com - porn art MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!

03-28-2008, 12:44 AM	#6
NinjaSteve Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 11,089	I think the license should be transferable at no extra charge. __________________ ...

03-28-2008, 12:39 AM	#4
rowan Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 17,393	Jesus H. Christ, are we STILL on about this shit?

03-28-2008, 12:54 AM	#9
Tempest Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Location: West Coast, Canada. Posts: 10,217	Do whatever the fuck you want.. it's your business... if it appears you're losing money, customers etc. because of the way you run your business, then change it so that you don't... If you can't grasp that simple concept then you should be running a business. I've believed for years now that content producers fucked themselves over and are in the state they're in because most were too stupid to adjust their model to the realities of the online business.

03-28-2008, 12:55 AM	#10
Penny24Seven So Fucking What Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: USA Posts: 6,287	We have been talking about this, I don't mind if they sell their business and move on but I would like to have the content stay with the site it was sold to. If they wanted to change domains and remove it from the original and put it on a new one I do not see a problem if they let me know. We are working on a small group that really does not compete with each other and start our first non-exclusive deal. __________________ Our site is coming soon. It will be one of the best ever! I know so. Brian and Penny

03-28-2008, 01:02 AM	#11
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	Paul, I think you should do whatever you want. Transfer, not transfer, transfer for $50 ... $500 ... $5,000 Take it a case at a time or blanket policy. Just be decisive and spare us your waffling. And polling a forum tilted to content users will get you obvious answers. Last edited by L-Pink; 03-28-2008 at 01:03 AM..

03-28-2008, 01:08 AM	#12
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	What do you think the popular vote will be?

03-28-2008, 01:11 AM	#13
GrouchyAdmin Now choke yourself! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 12,085	I'm torn. People trivialize others' work. If you've been paid for an exclusive set, well, there's that, and obviously, no. If it's something you were selling semi-exclusive, or open, then, if they transfer it, you should be able to pick up at least a little touch more; call it a '2257 ownership maintenance fee', I suppose. From my perspective: Software moves to new servers, new licenses, transfers, usually cost at least something for the company to update the books and licensing. I don't see why media content should be any different. __________________ AIM: GrouchyGfy

03-28-2008, 02:01 AM	#19
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	IMO.. it should be as fair as possible to both parties. The only way to do that, is to either license to the domain or to the affiliate program. At that point the original buyer of the content can legally sell the site with out hassles, with the content assuming he doesn't try to re-use the content after he's sold the site. The content producer should get a "reasonable" fee for transferring the license. No reasonable doesn't mean charging full price for the content or even half the price. It should be just that "reasonable" amount to cover your time and money spent having to update your records or to reissue a licence to the new owner. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator. Last edited by crockett; 03-28-2008 at 02:03 AM..

03-28-2008, 02:01 AM	#20
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	Licenses should be transferable via a fee, however only one person can hold this license at any time. I.E. you can not transfer it to 4 people and pay a smaller fee to do so as this makes you a wholesaler. Licenses should also be able to be written to a company. If that company itself is sold it should have no barring on the license itself in that case and the license should be still valid. Again limited to that one business having the license only. This should be without fee typically with some exceptions I feel. There should also be a separate license for design purposes. This one could perhaps allow for some resale of designs. Logically this type of license should cost more. I also feel another license that is more promotional based is needed. Some providers may claim a set is semi exclusive and will only be sold say for example 10 times. Then they give the buyers full affiliate use. When one large program buys a license and then 9 other small guys buy the same, guess who just got short end of stick. I guess I am saying is there should not just be a blanket license. There needs to be licenses for a wide range of uses as the markets change. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

03-28-2008, 05:38 AM	#22
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	So the original license can be transferred by the licensee if they sell the company, domains programs etc? The content owner can have a fee for doing so and that's it. Not veto or charge what he decides. Got you. Anyone not agree with this? __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

03-28-2008, 07:44 AM	#26
CarlosTheGaucho Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 9,512	I take non transferrable as default, or say non transferrable without an agreement of the producer. If it's a same person that closes shop but wants to use it on another site of theirs - than it's ok. It's a per website license so why would I care if it's xxx.com or xxx2.com as far as it's still one paysite of the same licensee. If the person closes shop and would want to offer the video to someone else - then it's a problem and I would insist on the new interested one to deal with me directly, because I own the copyrights and the license I granted can't be transfered by the licensee to a third party. __________________ CTG Media \| skype: carlosprague \| cb \|at\| ctgmedia \|dot\| net \| Want to make more with your Dating Traffic? \| Read My Educational Series \| Read my Adult Biz Chronicles \| Did your ad revenue drop by 40 pct. or more last year?

03-28-2008, 08:05 AM	#29
faxxaff Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Marina Hemingway Posts: 2,134	I can't understand why a webmaster would lease licensed content in the first place. I would always buy content so that I become the owner of it. Anything else is BS imho. __________________ Asian Babes

03-28-2008, 10:36 AM	#32
Lykos Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: World Posts: 31,027	We are doing it free of charge,since we started,it's stupid to charge again if company change owner or if owner makes new company. __________________

03-28-2008, 12:51 PM	#34
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	To me if they sell the whole site, then no charge. What I would do is congratulate them in their purchase let them know I was the original creator of that content. If you ever need more I have tons for sale. If it sells they will need updates.

03-29-2008, 12:32 AM	#36
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Where are all the content providers telling us that licensees can't transfer a license? Scared to ley buyers know they could find all the content that bought on a Tube site or used by Zango to spread spyware because they do not control their licenses as well as they should? __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

03-29-2008, 01:13 AM	#37
Christina Muller Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Canada/Germany Posts: 923	Hi Paul, I know your having some bad experiences but I think its like this. It doesnt matter what everyone else is doing,simply write your contracts to suit how you wish to do business,make them as simple or as complex as you wish and the buyer will or will not buy from you. If you prepare the contracts correct with detail you should never have a problem and if you do you simply take legal action or you at least will be in the position to do so. Nothing difficult about contracts if done correctly __________________ Promote A Brand Your Surfer Trusts Playboy No Upsell - No X Sales - No Bullshit !

03-29-2008, 01:15 AM	#38
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	If the license belongs to a business entity and that business gets sold, it is the business, not the license that is being transfered to a new individual. The licensee is actually the same before and after the sale. Right?

03-29-2008, 01:16 AM	#39
basschick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: el lay, ca usa Posts: 2,540	regarding license transfers, what i'd like to see would be that content license would be fully transferable with 2 conditions: 1. a document to show that the business is under new ownership and that all copies of all content under the license to be transferred have been removed from the original licensee's websites entirely. 2. content owner must approve new licensor after the new licensor affirms that he/she can fulfill all terms of the license. __________________ Got Gay and For Women Traffic?

03-29-2008, 05:33 AM	#42
Lee Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Kernow Posts: 2,977	Question for the slightly ignorant (i.e. me). Do you allow the licensee to be a company? And if so, what if the company is taken over so to speak and kept on in the same name? Or do you ensure the licensee is an individual(s)?

03-29-2008, 07:45 AM	#49
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	The original question was "Should the content provider make the license so the licensee can transfer it?" Yes, but with veto option by the licensor if he reasonably feels the new licensee will cause harm to his business in some way or another. Based upon what Paul is trying to argue in this thread that sounds reasonable. However, Paul is only using that as an excuse if you haven't noticed. Otherwise, he would have been agreeable in the past for a legitimate new licensee to be allowed a transfer of license for a small maintenance fee perhaps. He isn't doing that at all. His motives aren't about saving the content or saving the industry. It's purely motivated by greed, which is fine but odd that he won't just come out and admit that. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

03-29-2008, 03:18 PM	#50
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	Ok Paul since you keep going there, can a licensee holder get a refund if you allow the sets to appear on some tube site, zango, megarotic, and others? It would only be fair right? My only real issue is that you still try to pass off a license built for 1996 to users in 2008. Well that and despite what you said, when I mailed in a license I never got back a signed copy so I trashed the content several years ago. Can I now prove this no, but it did happen. You have the option of making it so that there are other rules to keep everyone happy and prevent your main argument from happening. You can easily limit what can be done with the license and content. This means you can easily prevent certain usage. For instance I could get your content licensed, place it on a single url, allow free access and promote zango. In the event only so much can be used for promo purposes, only requirement I would need to have happen is have the surfer give me something of value for access, such as an email address. This is really nothing against you either. This is about keeping customers happy and not being a dick. Compromise and common sense is some of the best customer relations a business owner can employ. However it is your business and your free to destroy it as much as you want in regards to internet buyers. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]