Quote:
Originally posted by venus
ya we dont understand this one, if we buy content from someone, we assume its licensed by the provider and free of litigation on our part. Its pretty screwy to purchase something from someone and then someone else tells you buy the way, you can buy it from them, but you have to buy a second right to use it from us. this isnt right anyway you look at it.
in my opinion.
the provider is suppose to have all licenses prior to be able to lease/sell it so I dont know how ACACIA can try to make someone pay twice for the same thing.
|
When a content supplier sells you content, you buy the right to use that content. Apparently the right to use the technology to stream the content may involve a second purchase. I think Acacia's claim is so vague as to be bullshit and I wish some of the BIG money corporations in more mainstream industries would wake up and start fighting this. What we will lose is peanuts compared to what other industries and institutions will have to pay if the patent isn't successfully challenged.
One idea: since they want to base their fee on gross profits, form a little corporation that will host the clips for you and simply make sure it doesn't make a profit. That's what a good accountant is for. Of course, maybe that won't work. That's what a good attorney is for.
