The principles behind APIC seem to be legitimate; however, their enforcement seems more suited to the old west. The ironic thing is, APIC seems to follow the same methods that more than a few sponsors do--shoot first, ask questions later.
The exchange between Lensman and APIC was not only unproductive, it was unacceptable. How can anyone take such an organization seriously after they attack a well known sponsor with arrogance and attitude in the place of substance?
However, I understand that APIC seems to be the only organization that assists content providers, so I understand Charly's decision to accept the good with the bad.
I'm sure if Charly and other content providers found a similar organization that behaved in a more professional manner--treating their current and futures clients as well as colleagues with the benefit of some due process-- perhaps they would use them.
Charly would you use another organization for copyright and trademark enforcement?
I think that is an important question.
Perhaps that new "adult webmaster" lobby will create a division for sponsors and content providers to enforce trademark and copyright law.
just my
