Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
Maybe Gideon has a lick of sense, if they don't pay for the affiliates license and the new license I should start serving DMCAs. I've done nothing wrong so far, other than losing my rag, so maybe I should think of serving notice on these guys.
They have content unlicensed, copyright infringement.
|
i have told you repeatedly that and the new license crap what is causing you all the problem.
re -read the sample letter i posted before you will notice i specifically avoid asking for the reup on the existing licience is the problem with your statement paul.
you have increased the cost of winning this case by 10 fold because your being an ass and demanding a liciencing fee which is at best suspect. The problem is you are absolutely right about the fees for using beyond the scope of the liciences.
but as long as your keep mudding the water with demands for fees that at best are the result in your conspiracy to embezzle funds from a corporation then you are going to just be wasting your time.
Quote:
|
Gideon are you one of their affiliates? And yes you are a tool and stupid. It's not my job to go around looking after Smokincash affiliates, that's Smokincash's job or are you too stupid to realise that?
|
and you paul are an idiot, your not looking out for the affilates you are protecting your content and preventing it use. Think about if you showed me content that was offending
knowing that if smokincash chooses to remove it from the affilate section i would have to take down a gallery i may be getting traffic for i would ever use your offending content.
Quote:
Of course a DMCA would not be a nice thing to do, but in the end if they don't contact me and pay what else am I meant to do?
But this is how much some think of piracy. So long as it's making them money it's fine. When I say them I mean normal affiliates. They are using unlicensed content, maybe without knowing maybe some are seeing this thread. So Smokincash know which videos are which, if not they need to go to the content stores and THEY need to sort it out.
|
good luck with that, mud the water in a legal issue combining fees you have an iffy right to with fees you have an absolute right to and try and win that case in court.
If you like spending 10 times the cost in legal fees to get your money go for it.
Quote:
|
So Gideon is your braincell working? Do you think I should sort it out for all the others as well?
|
when i mentioned reporting offenders to CAAST it was the stick of the carrot and stick offer i usually use becuase if they are screwing with my liciencing they are probably screwing with everyones liciences. informing the trade organization (which i am a member of) of a potential infringer is a pretty big stick.
if CAAST has to do an investigation on the company because of my complaint the fact that they refused to licience up even though i made consessions about potentially disputable charges (like your ignoring the "agent of" status and asking for the licience re-up) makes it easier for CAAST to make the arguement their actions are deliberate.
Without those concessions, that company can simply argue that it was a mistake and the only reason they didn't pay yet is because demanding fees you really were not entitled too.
Make the concession regarding the original fee, and go after them regarding out of scope use ONLY. That is the smartest move, but if you don't want to do waste your money, undermine your rep, and cost yourself tons of sales because people don't want to deal with a hard ass.