GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - I think I have a solution to the patent issue

Flow · 07-30-2003, 09:50 AM

Hey,

This is probably going to be length so bare with me. I was laying in bed last night and thinking (I do my best thinking in the 20 mins prior to falling asleep for some reason) and this hit me. I have been going over it this morning in my head and I think this is it (please ignore my horrible spelling).

I listened to the interview with the patent owner last night and it was a great interview (if you haven't listened to it I would say listen to it and learn a lot). A few thing that was said stuck out and from that I have formulated a plan......

a) There will be no "double dipping" - if a company that offers video feeds has licensed with them, then the person who leases the video feeds does not need to have a license.

b) An affiliate is legal defined in the interview is "somebody that has 50% or more ownership in a company" (he was very clear that the adult term affilate is nothing close to the legal definition)

c) There is no way in his mind to differenciate the income derived from the streaming videos used by a company and the income derived from the pictures and stories on a persons site so that is why they are asking for up to 2% of your gross revenues. He did add, however, that if there was a way to determine exactly how much income was derived from the streaming videos that he would be happy to hear it and if legit a deal could more than likely be reached.

From these statements, I came up with this......

What prevents a couple of adult webmasters from forming a company that offers video feeds to themselves? Lets say you own a company (LLC) that has 10 paysites, each with 1000s of videos available for download. My plan would be for you to team up with 2 or more other people in the same boat to make another company (another LLC) that sole purpose in life would be to hosts all of the videos you currently have on your sites. Then you turn around and lease those videos to your other companies for $1 a month. The 3 (or more) members of your video leasing company could split the $1500 registation fee and then agree to pay the 2% of your gross revenue on your video fees (your total gross income would be $36 if there was three of you). You do not lease those videos to anybody but your other companies. You are talking about an initial investment of about what , $500.12 for the first year, and $0.12 for every year after in your 2% processing fees. Being as there are three equal owners to your video feed company, none of you are "affiliates" of that company (being as you are less that 50% owners) so your income from your other businesses would not be included in your 2% annual fees. Even if you charge enough to cover that persons portion of your bandwidth costs (say what $300 a month = $3600 a year, 2% would only be $72 a year). Being as there is no double dipping, the video feed company has already bought the license so your paysites would not need too.

Damn I am good - LOL (kidding)

Flow

p.s. I also got this idea from an article I posted before and will repost for your reading pleasure here:

"It seems that Unisys finally discovered their patent in 1989 and started working out licensing terms. In 1994, after signing a licensing agreement for the GIF format, CompuServe attempted to pass the licensing costs on to its users. Confusion and anger reigned, and the LZW-free PNG format was the ultimate result of an attempt to avoid the licensing costs.

Things settled back down after CompuServe, Adobe, Corel, and other companies began licensing the algorithm. Then some companies apparently found a way to avoid paying royalty-based licensing fees. They charged for image editing software that did not support the GIF format, but included a free GIF plug-in with the software package.

Unisys keeps tightening its policies in an effort to eliminate these attempts at avoiding royalty payments on commercial software. But in doing so they seem to have made it difficult for some who want to license the technology."

Substitute a few phrases with whatever you think might apply. Those phrases to substitue are.....

a) Image Editing Software

b) GIF

c) Software package

07-30-2003, 09:50 AM
Flow Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 518	I think I have a solution to the patent issue Hey, This is probably going to be length so bare with me. I was laying in bed last night and thinking (I do my best thinking in the 20 mins prior to falling asleep for some reason) and this hit me. I have been going over it this morning in my head and I think this is it (please ignore my horrible spelling). I listened to the interview with the patent owner last night and it was a great interview (if you haven't listened to it I would say listen to it and learn a lot). A few thing that was said stuck out and from that I have formulated a plan...... a) There will be no "double dipping" - if a company that offers video feeds has licensed with them, then the person who leases the video feeds does not need to have a license. b) An affiliate is legal defined in the interview is "somebody that has 50% or more ownership in a company" (he was very clear that the adult term affilate is nothing close to the legal definition) c) There is no way in his mind to differenciate the income derived from the streaming videos used by a company and the income derived from the pictures and stories on a persons site so that is why they are asking for up to 2% of your gross revenues. He did add, however, that if there was a way to determine exactly how much income was derived from the streaming videos that he would be happy to hear it and if legit a deal could more than likely be reached. From these statements, I came up with this...... What prevents a couple of adult webmasters from forming a company that offers video feeds to themselves? Lets say you own a company (LLC) that has 10 paysites, each with 1000s of videos available for download. My plan would be for you to team up with 2 or more other people in the same boat to make another company (another LLC) that sole purpose in life would be to hosts all of the videos you currently have on your sites. Then you turn around and lease those videos to your other companies for $1 a month. The 3 (or more) members of your video leasing company could split the $1500 registation fee and then agree to pay the 2% of your gross revenue on your video fees (your total gross income would be $36 if there was three of you). You do not lease those videos to anybody but your other companies. You are talking about an initial investment of about what , $500.12 for the first year, and $0.12 for every year after in your 2% processing fees. Being as there are three equal owners to your video feed company, none of you are "affiliates" of that company (being as you are less that 50% owners) so your income from your other businesses would not be included in your 2% annual fees. Even if you charge enough to cover that persons portion of your bandwidth costs (say what $300 a month = $3600 a year, 2% would only be $72 a year). Being as there is no double dipping, the video feed company has already bought the license so your paysites would not need too. Damn I am good - LOL (kidding) Flow p.s. I also got this idea from an article I posted before and will repost for your reading pleasure here: "It seems that Unisys finally discovered their patent in 1989 and started working out licensing terms. In 1994, after signing a licensing agreement for the GIF format, CompuServe attempted to pass the licensing costs on to its users. Confusion and anger reigned, and the LZW-free PNG format was the ultimate result of an attempt to avoid the licensing costs. Things settled back down after CompuServe, Adobe, Corel, and other companies began licensing the algorithm. Then some companies apparently found a way to avoid paying royalty-based licensing fees. They charged for image editing software that did not support the GIF format, but included a free GIF plug-in with the software package. Unisys keeps tightening its policies in an effort to eliminate these attempts at avoiding royalty payments on commercial software. But in doing so they seem to have made it difficult for some who want to license the technology." Substitute a few phrases with whatever you think might apply. Those phrases to substitue are..... a) Image Editing Software b) GIF c) Software package