2 Day Member's Only Window?

[coit]

I read Jay's post regarding the 2 day window where only members can download.

However, it is now 4 days after November 30th, and it still isn't available?

Also, I do think that Alex's stance on piracy is very clear, based on what he has said on the show many, many times, dating back to his TV days even. It still doesn't make it OK to pirate, and I think Kevin's stance on it has changed since he has become a person who is financially tied to the revenues from these productions.

Since these shows now have sponsors, it would seem that Jay and company would be better served by not having a 2 day window, since some people will find ways to download early that aren't through Rev3 where they can be counted. Use the member incentive in another way, and don't lose downloads to the pirates!

[casework]

Well, I think Jay's post was being a little generous. It's a 4 day wait for free episodes(going by date), but looking at it as days, there are two full days when there's no free show(Sunday, Monday).

But the idea about sponsors is something that could go somewhere. Maybe this thread could be combined with the "An Idea." thread and we can try to come up with some solutions.

Maybe the donation could offer some other site perks(email, private forums, custom user titles, etc) and can go to the general wealth of Revision 3 as a whole, and as Diggnation gets more and more sponsors(what about selling ad space to users? I'm sure there are people affiliated with websites who wouldn't mind having their link put up in the credits as a small donator), and the videos could be released in limited ways(flash only for non-donators), or even a full release. And as has been made apparent, this will make Revision 3 even MORE money, because think of the hundreds(at least) of users who probably get Revision 3 from another source.

[jeffchan]

Originally Posted by crumbles

I don't understand why the hell what "Alex" or what "Kevin" says is even an argument with you guys? Does this sound rational to you:

Cop: "Why did you rob this bank and steal from it?"
You: "Because Alex does it/says he does it."

So, how does it make it right for you to do it again?

Actually I think in this case, the situation is more like
Cop: "Why did you rob this bank and steal from it?"
You: "Because you do it too. "
Cop: "So, you still can't do it. It's against the government's policy."
You: "You have no right to tell me to not do something you that you do all the time."

By the way, I think you misunderstood what coit meant. He is not arguing. From what I read, he wants a new way of doing this.

[casework]

Originally Posted by jeffchan

Actually I think in this case, the situation is more like
Cop: "Why did you rob this bank and steal from it?"
You: "Because you do it too. "
Cop: "So, you still can't do it. It's against the government's policy."
You: "You have no right to tell me to not do something you that you do all the time."

By the way, I think you misunderstood what coit meant. He is not arguing. From what I read, he wants a new way of doing this.

Agreed. I do think Alex in particular is being a bit hypocritical. But that's not my call to make. Obviously Jay rules all and despite what they say on the show, he has the final decision. With that, I totally respect and understand what they're doing. But maybe it would also be in the best interest of Revision 3 to try to not have Alex argue FOR piracy in nearly every episode, saying things like "I wouldn't pay for it anyway, so they aren't losing money," and people would be able to respect him turning around and asking the same thing of everyone else.

BUT, that's not what this thread is even about, so let's not turn it into that.

Does anyone agree/disagree with anything I suggested in my first post? Anymore ideas of solutions for the problem?

[yum9me]

Do as i say, not as i do... or in this case, do as Jay says, not as Kevin and Alex do.

[jeffchan]

We should stop turning this into another thread of arguing. It's pretty clear Jay will never change his mind no matter what everyone else thinks.

This thread is suppose to be about a new idea of doing the subscription

[casework]

Originally Posted by jeffchan

We should stop turning this into another thread of arguing. It's pretty clear Jay will never change his mind no matter what everyone else thinks.

This thread is suppose to be about a new idea of doing the subscription

And so far Coit and myself seem to be the only ones trying to have a discussion...

[coit]

Originally Posted by Casework

And so far Coit and myself seem to be the only ones trying to have a discussion...

Yeah, I was even accused by someone of stealing just because I pointed out that Alex's position on piracy is clear. Jay should rein him in on that issue in my opinion, because I actually agree with Jay in that if you are going to charge for something, you should have an employee advocating a philosophy that would make everyone believe it OK to get around paying for it.

That being said, it is a fact that charging for access to these episodes is reducing the number that are being downloaded from sites where viewership can be tracked. That is evidenced by the folks that are publishing the workarounds, or posting on youtube or whatever. This is no different than HBO, who limits their viewership by charging extra for access. I'm sure torrentland is busy with HBO shows that people get for free rather than paying.

Now, one of the things I like about podcasts/netcasts/whatever is that they put their sponsors products right into the show. This is a method that dates back to the early days of television.

For me, if I paid $5 for access here, $5 TWit, $5 for ZDNet, $5 for CNet, $5 for this, $5 for that, it would start to add up! I decided long ago that I would not pay a subscription fee for any internet content. That's the only way I could prevent myself from being nickeled dimed to death. I respect the digg/rev3 folks tremendously for what they have accomplished, for having a vision to lead the way in podcasting/netcasting/iptv/whatever. However, I expect them to make their cash via advertising.