Is Early Posting Pirating?

[yourfnmother]

Does early posting of Diggnation even violate its Creative Commons License? And if not does revision3's not allowing you do do this violate the license?

just curious.

[masherscf]

Does early posting of Diggnation even violate its Creative Commons License? And if not does revision3's not allowing you do do this violate the license?

just curious.

What do you think Matlock? As revision 3 doesn't grant the CC license until it's released to the public, it doesn't apply. Nevertheless, I'm not sure it is possible for a copyright holder to violate a license that they grant.

Of course, the site owners of this forum are allowed to delete ANY posting that violates forum rules regardless of any license that may or may not apply to the content of the post. There is an unambiguous rule against posting the links you suggest.

[tokenuser]

Creative Commons does not supersede the inherent copyright a work has. Go out to the Creative Commons website, and have a read of all the variants that you can configure a Creative Commons licence for ...

[waiting ... waiting]

OK ... here is the link you need to read (http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses).

[waiting ... waiting]

Now the question of early posting being piracy ... I am not a lawyer, and my only connection with Rev3 is as a mod, BUT a CC license is a "some rights reserved" licence. It is not carte blanc access to do with what you want.

The right that Rev3 reserve, is the right to distribute the file in two blocks - an early release to subscribing members (members who have purchased the right to early access), and a second release for the general public under a fair play/non commercial use CC licence. Once the file is released publicly, it is fair game under a CC licence, but until that point it is a limited release, and distributing those files - ESPECIALLY VIA WEB SITES THAT ASK FOR A DONATION is in violation of the wider CC licence, and the more general "some rights reserved" aspect of the licencing.

How hard is it to understand?

Diggnation DOES NOT get released on Saturday/Sunday, it is released on TUESDAY. Accessing it on Saturday/Sunday is for paid subscription members only in a deal that is separate to the CC licence agreement.

Quick question. Casino Royale hit the cinemas two weeks ago, yet DVDs of the movie are already available in quality ranging from "shot with a camcorder in a cinema" to near master quality prints. Are those DVDs pirated? I am sure that the movie studios do actually have DVDs of the movie out there, but they have not been issued for public release ... until they are, it is pirated content.

Accessing Diggnation early is no different ... and in the long run all you are doing is harming Rev3 by denying them accurate download counts that they can present to advertisers to justify higher prices for ads. More money for ads, means better equipment, hiring staff, quicker production turn around, more shows, etc, etc. If you love Diggnation, enough to download it early via "pre-release" sites, you are actually doing more harm than good. At least download a legit copy when it is released publicly so that the stats are recorded more accurately.

[yourfnmother]

But when they release it into the "members only" section they have to put it under some license, what are the terms of that license?

[yourfnmother]

Creative Commons does not supersede the inherent copyright a work has. Go out to the Creative Commons website, and have a read of all the variants that you can configure a Creative Commons licence for ...

[waiting ... waiting]

OK ... here is the link you need to read (http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses).

[waiting ... waiting]

Now the question of early posting being piracy ... I am not a lawyer, and my only connection with Rev3 is as a mod, BUT a CC license is a "some rights reserved" licence. It is not carte blanc access to do with what you want.

The right that Rev3 reserve, is the right to distribute the file in two blocks - an early release to subscribing members (members who have purchased the right to early access), and a second release for the general public under a fair play/non commercial use CC licence. Once the file is released publicly, it is fair game under a CC licence, but until that point it is a limited release, and distributing those files - ESPECIALLY VIA WEB SITES THAT ASK FOR A DONATION is in violation of the wider CC licence, and the more general "some rights reserved" aspect of the licencing.

How hard is it to understand?

Diggnation DOES NOT get released on Saturday/Sunday, it is released on TUESDAY. Accessing it on Saturday/Sunday is for paid subscription members only in a deal that is separate to the CC licence agreement.

Quick question. Casino Royale hit the cinemas two weeks ago, yet DVDs of the movie are already available in quality ranging from "shot with a camcorder in a cinema" to near master quality prints. Are those DVDs pirated? I am sure that the movie studios do actually have DVDs of the movie out there, but they have not been issued for public release ... until they are, it is pirated content.

Accessing Diggnation early is no different ... and in the long run all you are doing is harming Rev3 by denying them accurate download counts that they can present to advertisers to justify higher prices for ads. More money for ads, means better equipment, hiring staff, quicker production turn around, more shows, etc, etc. If you love Diggnation, enough to download it early via "pre-release" sites, you are actually doing more harm than good. At least download a legit copy when it is released publicly so that the stats are recorded more accurately.


Where can I find Diggnation licenses? I lloked around on the site and couldnt find them. That is the only reason i posted this. If I had read that they did have a two-teer CC then there would have been no post.

btw,
I think that rev3 does need peoples support, and I am not suggesting that people should share pre-release content. I was just posing a question.

[jcduerr]

why do these topics keep coming up? if you don't like the fact that you have to wait 2 days give or take to get the free version, there are 2 options 1). become a supporting member of revision3. 2). keep whining and crying that you cant get the members only version when you are not a member, ask for the links or what have you and run the risk of angering a mod or some one who has the wonderful ban button. i am not a paying member of the site so i wait till Tuesday or Wednesday and deal with the fact that i could have watched this 2 days earlier, witch honestly isn't a big deal because it's FREE. free stuff usually comes with catches or what have you any way. there has been numerous topics stating that revision3 does not want the non paying members to view it on a earlier day. they could easily make it so you have to pay to even watch it(no free version) which could possibly happen if all this where can i?, how can i get the member version early stuff come to an end....
ok im done with my rant now..

[lupin]

Though it may of been closed it wasn't purged from the forum http://revision3.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2372

Also Im not sure what CC license they use for their releases, but the safest thing to assume is they are using the most restrictive which is this:

Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd)

This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, allowing redistribution. This license is often called the "free advertising" license because it allows others to download your works and share them with others as long as they mention you and link back to you, but they can't change them in any way or use them commercially.

Since it is released under this it means that people are free to use at however they wish as long as they don't receive a profit from it or alter the original source. And all downloads I have found on the net for Diggnation do mention the site of course, and they are not altered and no one seems to be making a dime off of it.

Now, the mods are free to ban people from the forums for it because that is totally different. But legal action could never be taken against you. Its odd because every other use of the CC license has the logo/watermark on the site plus it acts as a link to the particular license the authors are using. IE www.podsafeaudio.com I would like to know which one Rev3 does use if anyone knows.

[thefast]

Whether or not it's "pirating" all depends on whether or not people have authorization from Revision3 to host their content early. Just type pirating into answers.com, you'll see. None of this will tell you the legality of using Revision3's content early without their permission though because of the license they seem to have on everything, but for the sake of really not liking people who get past the system, it would still be considered pirating.

I will tell you someone who does have permission to host their content early, however. That person's name is roflmonster (http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e340/the_infamous_trench/rofl_monster.gif).

[ariastar]

Sometimes I am amazed at the brainpower of some of this board's member. Thank you for sparing me from the obsessive-compulsive work I'd have done to explain this. And for raising my opinions of a couple people substantially.

[klitzy]

Since you are here, you like diggnation

If you like diggnation, don't download it from any other site

Since you are here, don't download it from any other site

x=y

y=z

x=z

[tribis]

I find it very community like and in many ways very respectful that the fans of the show defend the show and its community.

Just try to show the same level of respect for recording artist and software makers and movie studios.

[masherscf]

But when they release it into the "members only" section they have to put it under some license, what are the terms of that license?

Let me see, I read it here. "License: You can't have it before Tuesday if you aren't a subscriber."

That seems like a pretty cut-and-dried license to me. Are you just being dense as a weak rhetorical technique or are you really that moronic.

You're way under-qualified to think that and amount of bull-shit license talk is going to make Revision 3 acquiesce. You obviously don't understand what a copyright, how a copyright is obtained or copyright law. There's no reason why Revision 3 needs to put a creative work under license. Revision 3 grants the CC license when the work is released to the public as a courtesy. It's not something they have to do. They hold the copyright by default. The CC is merely a standard way of letting people know what they can or can't do once the work enters a public sphere. It is not a contract. It doesn't grant the downloader any rights or entitlements to a work.

To suggest that the use of a CC license in any way entitles you to facilitate the distribution of a work in a manner specifically and unambiguously prohibited by the copyright holder is just bull-shit.

[masherscf]

Just try to show the same level of respect for recording artist and software makers and movie studios.

So, you've decided that the private practices of one of Revision3's employees entitles you to steal from the company. I'd like to see you make that stick in a court.

[jeffchan]

So, you've decided that the private practices of one of Revision3's employees entitles you to steal from the company. I'd like to see you make that stick in a court.

I find it amazing that people around here assume beyond the text. Tribis was not refering to Revision3 employees in anyway. He was talking to the members of this community ;)

The staff of Revision3 should ask themselves, why does these kind of questions always come up? It's not because the members are stupid, they want clarification. And when someone ask these questions, no one should even assume that he or she is promoting early release to the public.

[masherscf]

I find it amazing that people around here assume beyond the text. Tribis was not refering to Revision3 employees in anyway. He was talking to the members of this community ;)

I was referring to his sig.

"Tell Alex Albrecht to pay for what he steals and maybe people won't steal diggnation"

He refers to Alex by name and uses his actions to suggest a justification for stealing.

[jeffchan]

I was referring to his sig.

He refers to Alex by name and uses his actions to suggest a justification for stealing.

Sorry, misundestanding. You quoted his post, not his signature ;)

[tokenuser]

I was referring to his sig.

"Tell Alex Albrecht to pay for what he steals and maybe people won't steal diggnation"

He refers to Alex by name and uses his actions to suggest a justification for stealing.

I'll quote Jay on this ...

Anyone who uses Kevin and Alex's name or tries to use their comments out of context to support pre-releasing videos is basically insulting Kevin, Alex, and Revision3.

I have asked the mods to enforce this as much as possible in the forums and ban anyone who posts links or makes references to websites that promote this activity. Please let them do their job effectively, and for those who keep saying that "Kevin and Alex think it is ok," please stop putting words in Kevin and Alex's mouths.

[tribis]

So, you've decided that the private practices of one of Revision3's employees entitles you to steal from the company. I'd like to see you make that stick in a court.

I enjoy the way you are able to read words that are not in the post. If you are refering to my "signature" I feel it is just a clever thought. And if you call him just an employee of the company, it is obvious that even you see the dilema thus why you trunctuated your statement in that way instead of saying: "THE HOST OF THE SHOW PEOPLE STEAL"

When you ask "...entitles you to steal from the company", I forget the part where I stated that I steal diggnation. Please show me that part because I seem to not be able to find it. (Considering I ONLY download the audio version from iTunes I think it will be hard for you)

To be honest I find you to be a very "simple minded" and uninformed individual. To bring up court and other such buffooneries is beyond my scope of imagination. To try to state such ludacris thoughts reflects nothing but your ignorance and clear bias on the "situation".

But since you defend the "little guy" so much I assume that you sir, have never pirated a single piece of material in your life. Do I assume correctly?

Never downloaded an MP3?
Never used a picture without paying royalities?
Never downloaded a tv show?

If you truly feel the need to argue the situation I suggest you put more thinking into your thought process rather then just spewing irrational bullshit.

And if Rev3 feels the need to sue or take someone to "court" as you said they better do it fast....I mean blazing fast....before the copyright ends and becomes a Creative Commons.

[ariastar]

Since you are here, you like diggnation

If you like diggnation, don't download it from any other site

Since you are here, don't download it from any other site

x=y

y=z

x=z

Fantastic!

[tribis]

I'll quote Jay on this ...

Once again you speak from the empty crevess that is your mind. I read that "news" already, before making my sig. And once again if you can find a quote in my signature that takes Mr. Albrecht's or Rose's comments about releasing diggnation to the public and it is out of context I would appreciate it.

If you belive I have taken Mr. Albrecht's comments of piracy out of context please let me know.

Also find the part where I support the pre-releasing of Rev3 content, because I searched all I could and I still can not locate any remnents of any such statement within my signature.

[tokenuser]

I am sorry ... I truly am, but if you read what I have posted, I haven't accused YOU of anything. In fact, I haven't accused anyone of anything.

I quoted Jay. It was an easily referenced source.

[ariastar]

This thread is taking on the feel of an attempt to find a loophole allowing early downloads for non-paying members and/or a round-about way of justifying early downloading.

[masherscf]

Never downloaded an MP3?
Never used a picture without paying royalities?
Never downloaded a tv show?


I have never caused a loss due to the activities above.

To be honest I find you to be a very "simple minded" and uninformed individual. To bring up court and other such buffooneries is beyond my scope of imagination. To try to state such ludacris thoughts reflects nothing but your ignorance and clear bias on the "situation".

I'll just let that stand.

Suffice it to say, I worked in a law office for three years on intellectual property cases while getting my Master's degree. Not to mention that I am a photographer with published work.

Your lame attempt to add legitimacy to your argument through personal attacks amuses me.

My only bias is against people making BS statements.

[ariastar]

Once again you speak from the empty crevess that is your mind. I read that "news" already, before making my sig. And once again if you can find a quote in my signature that takes Mr. Albrecht's or Rose's comments about releasing diggnation to the public and it is out of context I would appreciate it.

If you belive I have taken Mr. Albrecht's comments of piracy out of context please let me know.

Also find the part where I support the pre-releasing of Rev3 content, because I searched all I could and I still can not locate any remnents of any such statement within my signature.

Your sig does seem inappropriate right now, very accusatory. Regardless of your intention, this is what comes across.

One need not say exact words to still make a statement. That you have become so defensive indicates something else.

So just calm down and drop it. Unless you are a law student, there's no need to question every little aspect of Creative Commons. And if you are, you should be learning about law elsewhere. You aren't going to make a point here that it should be released to all a couple days early so that Jay allows it and come off looking like a good guy. So before you step a toe over the line and get banned, I strongly suggest just letting this go.

[casework]

This thread is taking on the feel of an attempt to find a loophole allowing early downloads for non-paying members and/or a round-about way of justifying early downloading.

I think you're absolutely right. With that said, I've stated this many times, threads like these and all this mess could be avoided with more clarification and communication. While Revision 3 has every right to run their business how they want and to keep their inner workings private, I personally see some of these questions that are presented to actually be honest questions from honest people. This thread? Maybe not. But because someone is curious as the the licenses used by Revision 3 on their material, that doesn't mean their intent is to find a way to circumvent it. Surely there are some people out there like that, but not everyone.

[xibalba]

Why can't people accept downloading early from another site = pirating and let it go. They don't what you doing it respect their wishes. I know nothing will stop some people from doing it though.

[tribis]

I have never caused a loss due to the activities above.



I'll just let that stand.

Suffice it to say, I worked in a law office for three years on intellectual property cases while getting my Master's degree. Not to mention that I am a photographer with published work.

Your lame attempt to add legitimacy to your argument though personal attacks amuses me.

My only bias is against people making BS statements.

I have no arguement to feed. I am simply outraged at your comment and insinuation that I am promoting piracy.

I have no respect for people who want to pirate Revision3 serivces or any other property. I simply state that you have over-drawn the situation to seem more serious then it truly needs to be.

The actions and words of the "employee", do have an affect on the people. I agree with you 100% Revision3 deserves its profits. Because they are entitled to them.

This site is not free
Production is not free
Bandwidth is not free

I have made no "BS statements" and have made no claim that stealing is any way justified, on the other hand I have clearly stated my negative opinion on this practice and urge supporters to help grow and prosper this community and experiment.

But to be fair I did somewhat have a negative tone in my writing and appologize. i find it great that you have worked on trial cases, but at the same time this gives you no merit above me or anyone else debating this issue. In the same sense that watching someone fly a plane gives you no merit as a pilot.

The only thing I can say is if you are such an advocate for the "property rights" of others is that YOU should advise the Revison3 company to ask its' employee to stop openly advocating/promoting piracy. Not because I find justice in that or use that as an excuse to steal from Rev3 or anyone else, but the fact that OTHER people do.

Thank you.

And to address the issue. I do NOT want the program released early or to seem like some sort of hero, I am only defensive because of the assumption of statements. I do not want the program to be free or anything like that I am very satisfied with letting iTunes download it whenever it pleases to. Aria I mean no offense to you, but trust me when I say my ententions here are not to recieve anything in return.

[masherscf]

i find it great that you have worked on trial cases, but at the same time this gives you no merit above me or anyone else debating this issue. In the same sense that watching someone fly a plane gives you no merit as a pilot.

Actually, litigation is boring as hell. Nevertheless, my "court" statement was hyperbole. You should have dealt with the statement on that basis. Next, the use of the pro-noun "you" was not directed at you specifically but a hypothetical "you" that steals. I used the word "steal" because it appears in your signature.

As a matter of good form, I'll offer my own apologies if you were insulted by my statements. I did not mean to accuse you of theft. I was only being argumentative. I am sorry.

As an axiom of online etiquette, I would not display a signature with a provocative message if I did not expect to provoke something. You're defensive posture is a little hard to understand given the inflammatory nature of the your signature.

Or did you expect everyone to ignore it as your would ignore an offensive bumper sticker or Tee-shirt?

[klitzy]

Fantastic!

Yup...Jay cleared this up for me :D

I've learned my lesson...

Warning:Tribis......Nothing good can come out of your argument. Nothing. It is their site and they make the rules and like I said before....If you like Diggnation and Revision3, you shouldn't even bring it up. Just download from their site and be happy.

[tribis]

Yup...Jay cleared this up for me :D

I've learned my lesson...

Warning:Tribis......Nothing good can come out of your argument. Nothing. It is their site and they make the rules and like I said before....If you like Diggnation and Revision3, you shouldn't even bring it up. Just download from their site and be happy.

Holy shit I dropped it and not only that if you read I already said I do, I dont want to ****ing get the damn thing two days early I never even noticed or knew people released it early.