Response to quote: "well, at least the Internet Media Protective Association haven't given up and rolled over." from www.cozycampus.com

"So maybe you ought not to be so quick to judge others by credos you wouldn't follow/adhere to yourself if put in the same situation in your business."

titmowse - you are something else LOL

1) I don't think this is a sign that CE has "given up and rolled over". How do you know what support they are still giving these organizations? The key point that I gathered was that if the Acacia thing turns out to be bogus (like almost every reasonable thinking webmaster thinks it will be) then they can recoup all their royalties paid to Acacia, that's a great insurance plan for whatever happens down the road. Why don't you address this point instead of just dropping a cheap shot at them (and anybody who chooses to settle)?

2) If it was your money, then you'd be making a settlement like this in a hurry. So maybe you ought not to be so quick to judge others by credos you wouldn't follow/adhere to yourself if put in the same situation in your business.

3) It's always easier to talk about how other people should do things in their respective business -- or comment in hindsight about what choices they have made -- but when and if faced with having to sit down and write the actual checks, the situation invariably is a different story for the person in the mirror.

Then again, maybe you have a million plus bucks laying around ready to throw at these Acacia patent infringement suits and would be happy to contribute and evangelize the cause financially.

I know you can formulate a much, more intelligent response than the one sentence GFY-cliched quip you made above, so I hope you'll return and give a real response to this important story.

Perhaps you just were in a hurry?

CE Cash settles to pay royalties to Acacia from www.cozycampus.com

"Look at the article where it says there were waivers protecting previous infringement claims and that if it turns out that Acacia is overthrown in court then they will owe CE all the royalty fees they collect"

Actually, I think this is a wise business move for them. Think about it for a minute.

Look at the article where it says there were waivers protecting previous infringement claims and that if it turns out that Acacia is overthrown in court then they will owe CE all the royalty fees they collect

As we all know, legal fees can become extraordinarily expensive. The deal that it sounds like that they struck seems pretty fair if it keeps them directly out of court for years.

And who is to say that CE Cash doesn't continue to help those who fight against Acacia. Lot's of "quiet" ways to finance a cause, if you know what I mean.

Adult Webmaster hypocrisy regarding copyright infringement? from www.adultnetsurprise.com

"IMO, there are a lot of dirty kitchens out there."

Ok, it's time to come clean, I'm sure that almost everybody here reading this is guilty of some form of copyright infringement.

If you have ever:

1) traded an mp3,
2) created a bootleg tape/recording at a concert (Metallica used to encourage this practice, btw),
3) "borrowed" a slogan or extended text from another website,
4) used one or more newsgroup pictures, videos, etc and posted on a website,
5) posted to a messageboard or published on a website an article or story written by someone else without permission
6) downloaded "cracked" software from a warez site, IRC or through some other file sharing means
7) taken a graphic design from site XYZ
8) fill in the blank

So my main question is what are the circumstances, if any, that make any one copyright infringement worse than another in your mind?

For example, let's say the webmaster who cries foul about his design being stolen but doesn't hesistate in his/her "free time" to download MP3 or use cracked software. Isn't this fundamentally the pot calling the kettle black?

Music artists work hard to get their music listened to and purchased and though they receive limited compensation from the sales of a music CD (the record companies make the most bucks) it still is illegal downloading and trading their mp3 with people who don't own the original CD.

Yet there is napster (well, was napster), kazaaa, etc

Isn't there more than a little hypocrisy going on here?

Or are you in the camp that feels that there are degrees of copyright infringement and that downloading and trading MP3 versus taking pictures from newsgroups and using for commercial purposes isn't the same thing as using pirated software or music?

... that it isn't that big of a deal to trade/download mp3, but it is a huge deal to rip an article, word for word, from resource site XYZ or do something like these jackasses did here to The Links Machine last year.

I commented yesterday about taking the entire post from one board in this thread and posting to another board without giving linkback credit and I used the (probably too strong) descriptive words: copyright infringement.

However, it got me thinking this morning seriously about copyright infringement and how there is more than a little hypocrisy going on around the web.

IMO, there are a lot of dirty kitchens out there.

This thread comes with a poll, for those who are interested and reading this in the old style flat view, click on the "view thread" and vote away. It is a multiple choice poll, so you can choose more than one answer if it applies, but I am very curious what your take is on this subject. If you are already in the thread view option, just look at the top of where the the messages start for where the poll is located.

You can add your own polls if you'd like to new threads you create. Just check the box that says "add a poll" and fill out the poll options. If you want to preview the post, you can do so to make sure that everything looks good first.

Please add your feedback, opinion and comments on this subject to the thread.

Is there hypocrisy here?

Response to CPPA article by Lawrence Walters, Esq from boards.theadultwebmaster.com

"I think the darker message in this article and in others that I've read is that Ashcroft has simply gotten the message that there is more than one way to skin a cat"

Well done, Mr. Walters on your article: http://www.theadultwebmaster.com/legalcorner/cppa_decision_01.phtml

I think the darker message in this article and in others that I've read is that Ashcroft has simply gotten the message that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Ashcroft has the Winston Churchill type mentality:

"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Speech about Dunkirk given in House of Commons June 4, 1940.

(every time I think of this Churchill speech I expect Iron Maiden to blast in with Aces High lol)

Seriously, though, it makes very good business sense to tread very carefully with folks like this.

From all angles (webmaster, sponsor, photographer, content producer/provider) perspective, it seems very wise to be carefully considering whether or not to promote and/or run "teen" sites, especially with content depicting models with the teddy bears and lollipops and pigtails (like a bunch of that content depicts).

I've written in the past that even the word "teen" to me anyway doesn't resonate in an "adult" context to me.

I mean, really, there are dozens and dozens of other niches like mature, bbw, 20 and 30 somethings and microniches like balloons and vintage porn, so why dance with a dragon like this anyway?

Recent court decision in favor of First Amendment rights from boards.theadultwebmaster.com

"Still, our First Amendment rights are being challenged through attempts to increase usage of programs like Carnivore under the guise of "national security""

I am not commenting on the virtual KP, but on Ashcroft coming down on the adult industry in general.

I would never underestimate the powers that be in Washington. Ashcroft will not rest during his tenure until he deals at least one critical blow to the adult industry.

It bothers me to even suggest that there is even a remotely positive aspect to that terrible situation on 911, but as a result of that, it has seemingly put the government focus on fighting bigger fires abroad.

Still, our First Amendment rights are being challenged through attempts to increase usage of programs like Carnivore under the guise of "national security". Snakes can take many paths.

And sometimes one "victory" in something may actually be a great defeat in another area. It's not all doom and gloom here, but as the last poster said, it's no time to cheer, it's a time to make even more sure one's backyard is operating legally.

Is it ok to buy similar domain names? from www.adultnetsurprise.com

"It's all about intent, and use"

I think as far as legality goes, and I'm no attorney, imagine you put a hamburger joint right behind McDonalds and called it Mc-Donalds. You think you'd get sued?

Now if that same building was an accounting office and there were two accountants, one named MC and the other Donalds, then I don't think there would be a problem.

In general, I wouldn't recommend buying similar domain names of any site unless you plan to use it for something totally unrelated -- especially if it is a commercial site.

It's all about intent, and use.

Xbay.com could be used for something other than an auction site, for example, and I don't think that would have the EBay lawyers in a tiff. So just the practice of buying names that are similiar to something isn't necessarily a taboo, it's what you intend to do with the site I think that matters.

(Note: some corporations have the 800 pound gorilla mentality and with little hesitation will drop C&D letters. This could suck if you spent time building up a site and then have to bow down to legal pressure, or the threat of it)

As for the adult biz, though, historically it seems that this practice isn't followed as closely because so many sites go out of business.

Webmasters get in, snag a decent name, work it for a year or two and then disappear. If you bought a similar name to a site like this your risk would be low to non-existent, though if your intention was as you posted in your former message then you'd still be walking a potentially mine-littered path.

In response to young man who commits suicide over addiction to video game from boards.theadultwebmaster.com

"It's a sad commentary on society when people are suing over someone who plays a game too much"

This story reminded me a little bit of the kid who killed himself after listening to Ozzy Osbourne's song: Suicide Solution.

I think in life that anything in excess -- food, drink, work, video games -- is a bad thing. Yeah, I suppose even sex (well if you are a guy maybe, because it can get a little sore down there).

What irritated me about this article was the mother wanting to blame Sony for her son's suicide by taking up a lawsuit. Come on, lady! It's a game, yes it's addictive but who's fault is it that he played the game so compulsively? It's not like Sony dialed up his house like Joshua from Wargames and kept insisting he play the game.

We played Everquest for awhile and when I started to realize (you have to know when this kid lost his job that he realized it was no longer about playing a game) it was becoming excessive usage I cancelled both our accounts. For those who have never played, it is a game of incredible depth and can command many, many hours of one's time. Time that is better spent doing other things. It's too easy to get sucked into a game "session" which takes 10 hours and yet your character only progresses a very small amount.

While at one time pac man and asteroids and other video games have taken a hold on me, there was always an "end" in sight -- either through my own skill level or the game having a conclusion itself. Games like Everquest, D&D, they don't have endings in sight.

There's also a somewhat disturbing movie starring Tom Hanks about a college student who gets into a D&D-like world and it blurs reality. Based on a true story, I think too. It was one of his first flicks.

There have been people who wanted to sue the maker's of D&D too.

IMO, it's a sad commentary on society when people are suing over someone who plays a game too much.

I also remember seeing a forum with family members trying to get their loved ones out of the "evercrack" addiction. I suppose that's a positive use of free speech, and perhaps this lady can do more through the internet and heading up organizations like this than by lodging a law suit.

To me, it's all about personal responsibility and not trying to blame -- financially or otherwise -- the companies who create a game that people love to play.

People want to blame porn addictions on Adult Webmasters and adult website operators, and I think that's a crock too. I won't deny that there are some folks who have a problem spending too much, but I wonder how much companies should be held responsible for compulsive behavior.

The saddest part is when family members become so depressed like this and no family member realizes it. That's what this mother should be wondering about.

Not searching for some real evil in Sony's game that just isn't there.