|
the big question is: is acacia's "encouraging infringement" claim valid ? certain legal precidents appear to blow their linking arguement out of the water. and these are the same folks who i've already read a post by a pay site owner who leases content being sent an acacia extortion letter. assuming ( for the sake of arguement ) the content provider has already signed a license agreement --acacia is getting 2% of the gross revenues from the streaming of that content. now acacia is looking to extort a license fee from the site leasing the stream. the fee paid by the site owner ( revenue to the provider ) is already figured in to the stream providers 2%. but now they want another 2% from the site owner because they're using the streaming feeds. double dipping. which berman in at least one archived interview session has said is ... illegal.
|