Home Business Profits Guide

I just found this site that is using Facebook in the most cunning way to reach large audiences for a site of high demand on Facebook. The site is click here and they offer a way to access Facebook from school (It is blocked at most high schools.).Their methods can be applied to any other site that is popular with the Facebook demographic. Facebook makes it very hard to spam users. You can only send messages to all members in groups of less than 1,000. Well, this site got around it by starting an event instead of a group. Their event is here for refference: click here

They have the ability to send messages to over 30,000 people at once, and the number is growing daily. Events like this spread virally.

I'm trying to make $15,000 in the next six months, and planned on buying and building a bunch of smaller sites (Investing a few hundred in each), but I was watching TV and heard that the creator of Bodog, a gambling site, is making up to a million a day, after he initially invested $10,000. Do you think it would be smarter to make one large site with a good sized budget, or a group of smaller ones?

If you are going to do social networking or anything like that, which is driven by user generated content or interaction, then you want one big site, like... um... Digital Point.

Then on the other hand if you are doing something about a topic like basketball or hunting or whatever, then you would want to do a lot of small sites. The reasoning for this is because you can focus your content into niches that can be region specific.

You could have one type of hunting that would be specific to a certain part of the world, like elk hunting or moose hunting or white tail deer. So you target that site as locationelkhunting or location.elkhunting.com or something like that. You build up a network of sites like that one at a time and then you can create one master site to connect them all together. The white tale deer visitor might be interested in elk hunting... but they may not want to read a 500 page site to find it.

Focus your sites specific to a niche and it may only make a few dollars a day or a week, but when you add the sites up that make up your network it will add up. In addition to that you then have a network of sites that you can sell advertising on. $10 per month for one site or $150 per month to be on the entire network of sites.

You can do anything with this, if you have an idea of something that could be narrowed to several differnet niche geographic areas, you could create a template site and then have 100's of sites up and running in matter of days or weeks.

From my past experiences with not only my sites but sites I have done freelance work on and watching other people. It is best to start with one website and have another «side project» website and focus most of your attention on the large one using same with most of money on larger one and if that grows keep expanding and slowly expand other.

From past experiences of when I first started when I had around 10 websites and was making dollars off each one and having to spend almost 15 hours a day working on the upkeep of them and marketing and then I switched up to 2 websites and made a lot more because I did not spread myself so thin and had time to concentrate on the one.

But it really all depends on how big the niche is of the websites because some don't take any time at all to upkeep and others take A LOT of time to compete with others

Question:I'm starting a new video/music site soon and won't be taking any videos off youtube. But what I want to know is can I actually do this.

Is it illegal to let people upload music and videos they have onto my site?

Answer:

As long they own the copyright on that....it's ok. ( this meaning as long as they did the music/video)

Don't overlook this key item:
«... the holder of a copyright has an obligation under the law to invoke its copyright; if violations are habitually overlooked, the holder may be deemed to have abandoned the copyright.»

«I think you are confused between trademark and copyright»

While trademark and copyrights are a bit different, this is the key principal behind abandonware. If they owner does not take action against you using his work or rather... The owner is not around nor cares then you can psuedo legally use their work since this is a civil violation rather than a criminal and the govnerment will not proactiviley persue intellectual property violation on their own without someone asking them to.

That said... If the owner does object to your usage he can haul you into court.

Failing to enforce one's copyright does *not* abandon the copyright. Abandonment of copyright requires a showing of an intent on the part of the copyright holder to abandon it. An obvious example would be, for instance, a readme file that says «this software is in the public domain.» There could be circumstantial ways (one court has held that destruction of the only known existing copy *could* be evidence of abandonment, but I never saw a final disposition on that case).

Trademark is different, because the essence of a trademark is its identification with the good or service whose origin it identifies. If a trademark is not defended, and it goes into common use as a generic term as a result (think «zipper» and «escalator,» both of which were formerly trademarks), then the word is no longer an identification of source, and is no longer functioning as a trademark. Which is why the trademark owners of «Xerox,» «Kleenex» and «Band-Aid» send those legal letters.

Knowingly failing to enforce a copyright may lead to it being unenforceable against someone who has relied on it not being enforced, under doctrines known as estoppel or laches, but that's not the same as abandoning the copyright. The principle is kind of the same as watching a next-door neighbor building a patio that extends an inch onto your property: if you know about it and wait until he's done, a court will say, «sorry, you lose, you should have stopped him before he relied on your silence.» But that doesn't' mean the same neighbor can then go and build a tennis court onto your property.

«Because abandonware would conflict with the stated goal of granting «exclusive right» (irrespective of profit), it is not currently recognized in the United States. In 2003, the United States Supreme Court further clarified this in deciding Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, which affirmed the legality of the Copyright Term Extension Act, an act that extended the current copyright terms by an extra 20 years. The decision noted that, so long as a copyright term is finite, it is permissible under the Constitution. Thus, a copyright in the United States is protected by the full strength of the law until it expires, between 70 and 120 years after initial creation, giving the copyright owner the monopoly for the duration.»

It's standard practice for websites to make users finanically and legally responsible for copyright violations, though no one reads the T&C. The DMCA usually protects Americans and other people in places where the DMCA has been copied, but it can be the case that a user could handed passed a $2K invoice for every image illegal image they upload, am sure it's way higher for video and audio.