Acacia & THE DIPS.
 

I'm listening to Berman respond to the question of double/triple/quadruple dips...


From what he said, it SOUNDS LIKE he said:

Content providers selling PLUG-IN content (streamed, downloaded, whatever) that is served by them

Ie... Pornoholio, HostedContent, Igallery etc sort of stuff...

That those providers will not be required to be licensed, UNLESS they are offering samples of the video to webmasters on their pages.


I guess the thing is maybe they CAN'T dip into the revenue stream more than once, so they have to pick & choose what they feel is the biggest revenue source (the paysites).


If this is true, this just dropped my potential liability down to damn near $0.

(Not that I was ever a video/audio content provider)... but if the license only applies to Paysites, and not Affilliates or TGP's promoting those paysites, or Cotnent providers serving content to those paysites.. then a lot of people just got 'off the hook'.

Anyway please correct me if I am wrong there....

I listened to the whole thing and I got that impression more then once during the questions.

I'm glad i didnt sign anything ;)

Surely they would let you out of the license once you clarified that it did not apply to you... right?

I got that impression as well (hard to keep up with the slippery bastard and his evasions though). I do understand that, legally, they can't double-dip into a revenue stream on just one use of a patented technology.

So, this leads to the question: Can we expect content providers to next start bashing each other for not having a valid Acacia agreement on file?