For those that run sponsor programs (Acacia Related)

[Kingfish]

Ok first let me offer this up that I am not bringing this up to be divisive, but I am beginning to have some real concerns, and I think there are a lot of people out there that have similar concerns.

As you probably know by now Acacia has started sending out letters to webmasters that do nothing more than link to sponsors calming the linking webmasters violate Acacia?s patent by inducing or contributing to the infringement of the sponsor. It is my guess that if you take any program overall a very small percentage of webmasters in that program make more than $3,000 a year from that program. I suspect most of these webmasters simply do not have the cash on hand to pay a license fee to Acacia nor do they have the money to arrange transportation to California and retain a patent attorney to fight the claim. Given that grim situation for probably the majority of your affiliates what do you have in place to help your affiliates? Do you plan to pay your affiliate?s license fees? Do you plan to pay their legal fees? Do you plan to reimburse them for their costs. Again I don?t bring this up to be divisive, but it seems to me most program owners don?t have anything in place to address the concerns of their affiliates once they actually get a summons instead of a sales letter.

[TaDoW]

only time can tell - it would be nice if it came down to it for the sponsor to pay the affiliate fees.

we'll see what happens.

[doober]

blah blah blah, acacia is clueless and its obvious they are on the downward spiral....

worry not

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by doober
blah blah blah, acacia is clueless and its obvious they are on the downward spiral....

worry not

Well that seems to be the standard line of thought offered up so far, but I was hoping for more.

[basschick]

most people use multiple sponsors, so how would that work? i mean, a while back, ars said they had 2000 active webmasters. are you suggesting they pay $3,000,000 to license all of them with acacia?

[CNN]

just fuck acacia

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by basschick
most people use multiple sponsors, so how would that work? i mean, a while back, ars said they had 2000 active webmasters. are you suggesting they pay $3,000,000 to license all of them with acacia?

No, but what I do expect is for them and all sponsors to do is come up with some sort of plan so affiliates aren?t left holding the bag for their sponsors patent infringement.

[Kevin2]

I don't think that would work because out of a few thousand affiliates how many actualy make good money for themselves and the sponsor?

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Kevin2
I don't think that would work because out of a few thousand affiliates how many actualy make good money for themselves and the sponsor?

Just a guess, but probably less than 10%

[Scootermuze]

Going after webmaster affiliates is a clear sign that Acacia is losing their little attempt that they thought would be easy prey for them..

Sponsors won't have to pay for the license for their affiliates..

If, by some stroke of loopholes or politics, Acacia wins, they still can't charge affiliates when the sponsor pays for the license..

Berman said they can't do that.. It's not allowed..

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Scootermuze
Going after webmaster affiliates is a clear sign that Acacia is losing their little attempt that they thought would be easy prey for them..

Sponsors won't have to pay for the license for their affiliates..

No they won?t However, the question I was rasing is it fair for the affiliate webmasters to have to pay the fees for their sponsors. I don?t think it is.

[Kevin2]

Ok so a sponsor has a 50/50 deal and you want him to pay for your Acacia license out of his 50% cut of the sales you send him?

Maybe a sponsor would be willing to go 50/50 on the Acacia costs based on your sales as an affilaite. For example (I'm ignoring the processing fees etc to make it simple) -

Kingfish is an affiliate and he sells 10 memberships for October @ $20 = $200

Kingfish has earned himself $100 and has earned the Sponsor $100.

The sponsor gives you $50 which is half of what you earned for him so you can put this toward paying Acacia. Maybe Acacia will offer you a monthly payment plan to pay off your $1,500 LOL

Ok this is just an example but it is unfair to expect a sponsor to fork out the whole amount.

[berg.the.red]

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.

[Pleasurepays]

the company is built on press releases and nothing else. there are no more big press releases other than "Acacia is getting sued from every angle and the remaining people in adult have told them to fuck off"

it will be tough for them to continue to "enforce" their "patent" while explaining to the remaining shareholders why their stock is worth $0.69 a share from a high of $8.00

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=ACTG&t=3m

the patent is going to be invalidated. its just a question of time.

their troubles are just beginning.

[Flow]

Originally posted by Scootermuze
Going after webmaster affiliates is a clear sign that Acacia is losing their little attempt that they thought would be easy prey for them..

Sponsors won't have to pay for the license for their affiliates..

If, by some stroke of loopholes or politics, Acacia wins, they still can't charge affiliates when the sponsor pays for the license..

Berman said they can't do that.. It's not allowed..

BINGO! I believe this answers all of your questions, though I will elaborate a bit.

If the sponsors that your promote sign an agreement with Acacia, then the affiliates are off the hook and will not have to pay a penny to just ilnk to those sponsor site (the double dip theory).

On the other hand, if they do not pay, then you the affiliate of said sponsor program will have to for the honor of promoting that violating sponsor.

They cannot sign agreements with a sponsor then make you sign one = double dipping = illegal. BUT, they can sign an agreement with you, then sign an agreement with your sponsor and because their patent has not be revoked as of you, both agreements would still be binding (unless your contract says otherwise, but I doubt that).

Getting the sponsor to pay the affiliate's fees is crazy talk, never going to happen.


Just my 2 cents - not a lawyer of any kinds, just my educated opinion on the matter.

Flow

[Flow]

Originally posted by Kevin2
Ok so a sponsor has a 50/50 deal and you want him to pay for your Acacia license out of his 50% cut of the sales you send him?

Maybe a sponsor would be willing to go 50/50 on the Acacia costs based on your sales as an affilaite. For example (I'm ignoring the processing fees etc to make it simple) -

Kingfish is an affiliate and he sells 10 memberships for October @ $20 = $200

Kingfish has earned himself $100 and has earned the Sponsor $100.

The sponsor gives you $50 which is half of what you earned for him so you can put this toward paying Acacia. Maybe Acacia will offer you a monthly payment plan to pay off your $1,500 LOL

Ok this is just an example but it is unfair to expect a sponsor to fork out the whole amount.

The 2% is from GROSS revenue, so even if you are in a 50/50 split, and despite the fact that you lose 50% to your affiliates/partners - you still pay 2% on the gross revenue, not net.

Flow

[Kevin2]

Ahh ok I thought there was a minimum of $1,500

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Kevin2
Ok so a sponsor has a 50/50 deal and you want him to pay for your Acacia license out of his 50% cut of the sales you send him?

Maybe a sponsor would be willing to go 50/50 on the Acacia costs based on your sales as an affilaite. For example (I'm ignoring the processing fees etc to make it simple) -

Kingfish is an affiliate and he sells 10 memberships for October @ $20 = $200

Kingfish has earned himself $100 and has earned the Sponsor $100.

The sponsor gives you $50 which is half of what you earned for him so you can put this toward paying Acacia. Maybe Acacia will offer you a monthly payment plan to pay off your $1,500 LOL

Ok this is just an example but it is unfair to expect a sponsor to fork out the whole amount.

I think it depends on the perspective that you look at it from. I am talking about the type of affiliate that just links to his sponsor not an affiliate that has audio or video streaming from his own site. Now in this context the affiliate is being asked to pay for the conduct of his sponsor not his own conduct. I have no control over if my sponsor settles or does not. It is not my decision to make. I have often heard people on this very board that it is not my business to know who settled and who did not. Based on that kind of thinking I can?t even make an intelligent decision as to if I want to keep promoting a sponsor because I don?t know who settled and who did not. However, if my sponsor makes a decision that costs me $1500 is it not realistic to expect to be compensated for it? What I am trying to get across is that the sponsors need to come up with some sort of game plan. I hear a lot of people talking shit and very few people talking substance. Let me lay the process out to you for those that have never been sued before. 1. A suit is filed against you in California. 2 You have so many days to answer it 3. A hearing is set and you physically have to appear at some point in the state of California 4 If you don?t answer the complaint a default judgment is asked for and granted 5. All of you domains are turned off Now here is where it gets really fun. As part of the default judgment the Plaintiff can ask and get an order from the court that will garnish any money owed to you from a sponsor. Now for even more fun 6. The Plaintiff can take their judgment they got in California and export it to any state in the union. 7. They then issue in your local community an order to appear and at that little hearing you get to tell them under oath where you have savings + checking accounts and who your employer is so they can garnish those income streams as well. 8. The judgment will show up on your credit report. You will be unable (there are a few exception but they are all expensive) to buy a home, buy a car, or get a credit card until you pay the judgment off in full.

[Rochard]

I got the letter from Acacia myself earlier this week.

Acacia is doing this for a few reasons...... First, Acacia is hoping to all of these webmasters will pee in their pants and beg their sponsors to give into Acacia. Second, the webmasters who can't defend themselves will be forced to give in which will provide Acacia some money.

This isn't going to work. These webmasters - assuming they don't have any video on their sites - aren't violating anything Acaica claims to own. Acacia will say that they are promoting a company that is violating their patents. SO? (If the gas station I buy gas from is violating some law does that make me guilty of anything?)

If Acaica thinks they can take every adult webmaster to court, let them. It will cost them millions, and they will get almost nothing back in return.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by berg.the.red
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.

The legal precedents I have seen presented in the forums have nothing to do with Patent law they deal with a linking case where the person doing the linking wasn?t making any money on the deal.

Here is a discussion of a linking case that is more comparable
http://packetstorm.linuxsecurity.com...00-lessons.htm

And an important thing to keep in mind if you are going to fight the claim on the merits you need enough funds in the bank for transportation and accommodations to and from California and money to retain a patent attorney. Now even if you win on the merits you don?t get all of that money back you just get to keep on doing what you were doing before. On the double dipping argument, my understanding is that not that many sponsors have settled. So if they are going after you for your links to sponsors that haven?t settled they haven?t even single dipped yet as to that income stream.

[Kevin2]

Originally posted by Kingfish



I think it depends on the perspective that you look at it from. I am talking about the type of affiliate that just links to his sponsor not an affiliate that has audio or video streaming from his own site. Now in this context the affiliate is being asked to pay for the conduct of his sponsor not his own conduct. I have no control over if my sponsor settles or does not. It is not my decision to make. I have often heard people on this very board that it is not my business to know who settled and who did not. Based on that kind of thinking I can?t even make an intelligent decision as to if I want to keep promoting a sponsor because I don?t know who settled and who did not. However, if my sponsor makes a decision that costs me $1500 is it not realistic to expect to be compensated for it? What I am trying to get across is that the sponsors need to come up with some sort of game plan. I hear a lot of people talking shit and very few people talking substance. Let me lay the process out to you for those that have never been sued before. 1. A suit is filed against you in California. 2 You have so many days to answer it 3. A hearing is set and you physically have to appear at some point in the state of California 4 If you don?t answer the complaint a default judgment is asked for and granted 5. All of you domains are turned off Now here is where it gets really fun. As part of the default judgment the Plaintiff can ask and get an order from the court that will garnish any money owed to you from a sponsor. Now for even more fun 6. The Plaintiff can take their judgment they got in California and export it to any state in the union. 7. They then issue in your local community an order to appear and at that little hearing you get to tell them under oath where you have savings + checking accounts and who your employer is so they can garnish those income streams as well. 8. The judgment will show up on your credit report. You will be unable (there are a few exception but they are all expensive) to buy a home, buy a car, or get a credit card until you pay the judgment off in full.

I understand what your saying and it does make sense but if a sponsor does agree to pay for his affiliates what's stopping the affiliate from moving on and promoting another sponsor leaving the first one with a loss. It is a very difficult issue to resolve and I don't know what the answer is.

[FightThisPatent]

Acacia could also just pick and choose which sponsors it wishes to settle with, and leavethem alone and go after the afiiliates (especially sponsors with a large affiliate base)

It really doesn't make sense to me about this whole contributory infringement issue..... the sponsors should be the targets... if they don't settle, it is absurd to hold the affiliate responsible.. afterall, they can just put the sponsor on notice, then should they fail to enter into negotiations, they then take the sponsor to court.

Instead, if the sponsor doesn't jump at signing the deal, they instead try to pick on easier targets.


Fight the Patent!

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by RocHard
I got the letter from Acacia myself earlier this week.

Acacia is doing this for a few reasons...... First, Acacia is hoping to all of these webmasters will pee in their pants and beg their sponsors to give into Acacia. Second, the webmasters who can't defend themselves will be forced to give in which will provide Acacia some money.

This isn't going to work. These webmasters - assuming they don't have any video on their sites - aren't violating anything Acaica claims to own. Acacia will say that they are promoting a company that is violating their patents. SO? (If the gas station I buy gas from is violating some law does that make me guilty of anything?)

If Acaica thinks they can take every adult webmaster to court, let them. It will cost them millions, and they will get almost nothing back in return.

Ah finally someone I recognize as working for a sponsor . If I were a webmaster and didn?t make a lot of money at this (as I suspect 80-90% don?t make a lot of money at this) I would be pissing in my pants. Ok so you claim the linkers don?t owe any money. How do you purpose your affiliates make that claim in court? Making that claim in court would require your affiliates to have enough money to travel to California and retain a patent attorney to represent themselves out there. What % of your affiliates do you think have that kind of money? 15%, 10%, 5%, 2% I would also suggest you have your attorney?s look into the inducing infringement cases. I have and I can tell you IMO in looking at the materials if their patent is valid there is case to be made that linking would be inducement. There are cases out there that say the mere advertising of a product is inducing infringement.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Kevin2


I understand what your saying and it does make sense but if a sponsor does agree to pay for his affiliates what's stopping the affiliate from moving on and promoting another sponsor leaving the first one with a loss. It is a very difficult issue to resolve and I don't know what the answer is.

No I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying a bit. I am not saying sponsor should pay every affiliate?s licensing fee. What I am saying is I think the sponsors should go back and evaluate their decision to settle or not settle in the context of how it impacts their affiliates. Someone gave the example of ARS having 2000 affiliates above. Now which is the better solution have each of the 2000 affiliates pay $1500 or have ARS pay? Ok so ARS still doesn?t want to pay maybe they should set up a legal defense fund for their affiliates that get sued so their affiliates aren?t left holding the bag. (Note I am not picking on ARS just using them since they were mentioned above)

[Kevin2]

Ah ok now I see where your comming from, sorry mate