digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

DiggDown: Revision3 Vs. DiggNation Fan

blog.wired.com — While you were enjoying your weekend, one DiggNation fan was allegedly getting thumped by Revision3's legal team.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • techer123, on 10/11/2007, -178/+84The 1st time Kevin pissed me off was when he said his xbox live id on the show and then just made a new id so he would have to accept us low life fans. The 2nd time was when Kevin and Alex started asking the fans for a beer fund donation. Now the 3rd is with this cease and desist letter to diggdown.net (now iggdown.net). The only show on revision 3 that you have to be a paid member is diggnation (the most popular). I refuse to watch the show any further for the money grabbing tactics. I also refuse to watch any other show from revision 3 like indigital, totally rad show, systm, etc. just because of Kevin Roses GREED! I doubt this will make the front page, I sure it will be kept down like other stories about Kevin. ***** YOU KEVIN ROSE - FROM A LONG TIME FAN - NOMORE. - YOU GREEDY BASTARD!
    • ccheath, on 10/11/2007, -82/+10the first time kevin pissed me off was when he wouldn't suck my ***** ... i even said please

      but seriously

      WOW... you make some great points, but don't you think that KR can do whatever he wants to do... sell out etc etc etc
      and you can do the same as well ... not watch etc etc etc
      let the invisible hand of the free market do it's thing... contribute to reddit or whatever...
      stick it to him in your own way, but sticking around here on digg is definitely not the way to go about it

      also: i'm interested to hear what striker has to say about this... so far i haven't been able to find anything of substance besides a lamenting blog post (probably because he's smart and has a lawyer that's advising him not to comment)

      anyways.... whatever
    • ScrumFritter, on 10/27/2007, -39/+96Dude, it's not even as if you never get to see it, they put it up, for free, a few days later. You're totally overreacting because you're too cheap to donate $5 a month, which is ***** NOTHING, so you can see a show you could see anyway, just a few days earlier.

      DiggDown was putting up paid content early, which seems kind of lame to me. They deserve what they get. If he was really a Diggnation fan he wouldn't be hurting their donations by distributing stuff that wasn't his to distribute.
      • nobody554, on 10/11/2007, -4/+32For me, its not about having to pay to see it, its about what one person mentioned in the rev3 forums:

        “Sorry, but I have a problem with anyone from Rev3 saying that we shouldn't download it early from [site name removed] when there are probably 10 or more episodes of Alex and Kevin clearly stating they have downloaded and do download stuff illegally...”

        Oh, and the fact that no one truly knows what the Creative Commons license for Diggnation is.
      • rebrad, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's all about the Gold. After all, it's not personal, it's business.
    • jspegele, on 10/27/2007, -21/+170You seem to think that Digg and Revision3 are providing a public service. They're not. They're businesses looking to make money. As for being so pissed about Kevin Rose changing his xbox live id . . . stalk much?
      • artofwar420, on 10/11/2007, -9/+34It's just ironic, that Kevin and Alex download tv shows, and even jokingly tell us they do it. Guess now they know how it feels to be downloaded. Kevin, Alex, you guys talk it but don't walk it.
        • jspegele, on 11/09/2007, -3/+4Actually, it's pretty much just Alex. Kevin (could be lying, who knows) is always saying how he purchases all of his music and television on iTunes. Alex is another story though, I wouldn't be surprised if he was downloading Diggnation from (d)iggdown, because he doesn't want to pay to view the final cut of the show.
    • Rfriaz, on 10/11/2007, -26/+2Fresh copy-pasta?
      • modpancake, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1gb2 4chan
      • modpancake, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Digg's ***** comment system double-posted that, so digg this down.
    • noodlez, on 10/11/2007, -9/+60if you seriously think that the things you mention are major infractions or should be seriously considered "money grubbing tactics", you need to grow up.

      who wouldn't want to dodge the thousands of invites he probably got on xbox live, or the harassment? if you don't like the beer fund, don't donate. tons of bloggers do the same, and not giving them money IS actually an option. and guess what? revision3 costs money to operate. they still provide the exact same free service, except they have an incentive program for people to give them a few bucks.

      you're sounding like a highschooler who had their heart broken and is writing about it on their blog. perhaps some poetry is in order?
    • omarciddo, on 10/11/2007, -9/+25Dude. ***** relax. Diggnation is the only show that you had to be a paid member for (you said so yourself). So if people are getting diggnation early, where the ***** are they supposed to get their funds from? You think its a joke they need a beer fund? They can't ***** afford it because not enough people are members! I myself don't pay 5 bucks a month (which is nothing) because I don't mind waiting till Tuesday. Whether you like it or not Revison3 shows are not free to produce, they cost money just like everything else in this world. Tell you what, now that you're at it, I challenge you to a full Kevin Rose boycott. That means no more digg for you until Kevin Rose leaves digg, you up for it? Put up or shut up. Whether you take the challenge or not, I look forward to September when your whiny ass is back in school (you gave yourself away with the last caps-lock rant).
      • mikesbaker, on 10/11/2007, -19/+8not free to distribute. 2 fags and a web cam and a six pack cost very little to produce.
        • omarciddo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Lots of other shows dude, lots of other shows. Distributing them all does cost a lot, probably a lot more than actually producing, so I guess I do stand corrected there.
        • BryanJK, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4alex or kevin actually have to take a plane to start a show, they have a crew (Rev3 has alot of shows), a giant highres video camera, and other things probably just to make a show, which rocks btw
        • optik, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3and their biggest cost, bandwidth....
        • andburn1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Yeah... it's not just a webcam. It's a real hires video camera, wireless mics, editing software/equipment, plane tickets (Alex lives in LA and Kevin in San Francisco). Do you know how much they pay Cachefly to distribute it? I don't, but it's probably a *****. Either way, they gotta get paid. Their sponsors pay according to number of downloads, which Cachefly records. If you're not downloading through iTunes or the Rev3 website, your view isn't counted, and they lose a little money. The other shows don't have massive amounts of sponsorship - Revision3 produces less watched shows that need funding as well - and membership is a part of what allows them to do that.
      • CraigCarlyle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I would not mind paying $5 a month, hell even $10 a month for a Rev3 account if I was getting something more than DiggNation a few days early.
      • sinembarg0, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1They're supposed to get their fund from the ads they put in their shows.

        Don't act like you're superior because you're older, clearly you need to take another English class. 'Til is a shortening of until, where as a till is a farming tool.
        • omarciddo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sorry buddy, but it's going to take more than being a grammar nazi to make me give a *****.
    • tryferos, on 10/11/2007, -4/+24techer123, you sir are an idiot....
      1. "said his xbox live id on the show and then just made a new id" - What, he has no right to privacy or the right to change his mind?
      2. "Kevin and Alex started asking the fans for a beer fund donation" - This was because people were ALREADY sending beer to them in the mail. They set this up to make it easier for the fans who WANT to get them beer, and its cheaper for them because its just cash not shipping, and its less hassle overall.
      3. "cease and desist letter to diggdown.net (now iggdown.net)" - the reasons for this have been discussed over and over, and the fact that you still dont understand is just sad.
    • herrshuster, on 10/11/2007, -9/+29Look #1: diggnation has to make some money somewhere
      #2: BUT it's not from fans...it's from sponsors...and sponsors NEED to know how much attention they are getting. Downloading from Rev3 is the ONLY way they know how many views they are getting. Good show kevin
      • thwackitechnica, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Striker said he was actually going to send them the figures for the downloads he gets. Dunno if that happened or not.
    • samuelcotterall, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Everything you said is completely flawed.

      Points two and three have obvious practical and legal reasons behind them.

      If you can't grasp the basics of IP law then you shouldn't be commenting.
    • BlackMagic2, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9FYI Totally Rad Show has almost nothing to do with Revision3, it is the only show made completely independently, boycott Revision3 all you want, but TRS is, in fact, totally rad.
    • raymore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7He's not greedy, he needs to make a living like everyone else, and you know, for how much of a success digg and diggnation are, he could be charging a whole lot more.
      • PoopStick, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2not really
      • andburn1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1It has to be free to be appealing, and the way they keep it free is through sponsorships. The way they get sponsors is through recorded number of downloads. Kevin will make plenty of money when his time comes, but for now, it's his company that needs the money.
    • elchuy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5According to copy write law, Digg must go after people that use the word Digg. If they don't then they are saying that anybody can set up websites and call them digg, or any variation there of. That's why apple does it. That's why Microsoft does it and every company out there does it.
    • ph3rny, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS,DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS

      suck this trademark violation digg
    • techer123, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2yeah whatever "DIGGNATION FAN BOYS" !!!! All this could have been avoided if greed wasn't a factor. Paid membership, early download. It would poetic justice if the piratebay decided to make a diggnation section available the same time as paid members. I would love to see the piratebay's response to the C&D letter. lmao.
  • Rockyrowks, on 10/11/2007, -20/+96http://digg.jerrcs.net:8080/mirror/
  • atari77, on 10/11/2007, -49/+248I think they have to do this kind of stuff to protect their trademark. I think we all can agree that generally diggnation is quite fan friendly. I am interested to see what they have to say though.
    • jcounterman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+62They would have made him change the name of his website (from "diggdown" to "iggdown") because of the trademark, but removing the content was all about copyrights, which you do not have to defend in order to keep.
      • sexybobo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+37that is the only thing that bugs me about all of this. All Rev 3 videos are released under the creative commons license. and then their lawyers send out a cease and desist order because Iggdown is infringing on their copyrights. I guess what i am saying is they had to get him to change his name for trademark but if they are going to pretend to release their work under creative commons they need to shut up about copyright infringement. or just start releasing videos under full copyright.
        • steevo, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19Creative Commons is still a Copyright, its just it allows you to easily define what you allow people to do with your content
          • MWeather, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17And how was diggdown violating the license?
          • Rojahon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16Right, but even the most restrictive CC license allows for distribution.
          • DJMajickman, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5@MWeather, did you read the article. iggdown was releasing the "paid" subscription podcast early to his visitors. So he's generating revenue based on site hits to his site for "pay for the pleasure of getting me early" podcast. I say screw that kid. This would be like me going to audible.com buying a couple of books than sharing them out over on my sight and generating money for every visit I get. IT'S ILLEGAL plain and simple.
          • sexybobo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6accepting donations to keep your server running is different then having a paid subscription. he didn't require people to pay to download the episode.

            Also your audible comparison is completely wrong. Diggnation is released under Creative commons which gives every one permission to redistribute the file what he was doing was not illegal. but he can not fight back because he doesn't have money to fight in court.
        • andburn1, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2They still need to make money. Money comes from sponsors. Sponsorship comes from downloads. Downloads are recorded through Revision3. It's all very simple.
          • iadiggs10, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The guy who had the site did try to tell Revision3 how many downloads there were from his site. When he initially did this and posted his numbers on the Revision3 Forums he got no response. Due to the fact that he was doing it by hand calculations and it took him an awful long time, he stopped. Then, after Kevin mentioned his site in Episode 102 he went through the pain of coding a system to once again track download stats and only two weeks later got a cease and desist.
      • saralk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5It is quite confusing, I can't find any reference on the site to exactly what type of license they use, other than the some rights reserved logo.

        Maybe they could argue that the advanced content was subject to different copyright restrictions and when it is released fully, it becomes CC. But I can't see where it says that anywhere.
    • iashraf, on 10/11/2007, -3/+41I remember Kevin saying on Diggnation that he had no problem with diggdown.net (i may be remembering incorrectly).

      Sure, go for the domain as it violates the digg trademark, but dont say you're cool with what the service is then go after the creator!
      • zackkitzmiller, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4He just said in a recent episode that he would rather if people would stop using "you know what site."
    • titlesaysitall, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7He did say that but later Rev3 changed that due to copyright issues.
    • PunkFenixJT, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8hmm, kevin dugg up this comment but didnt leave a comment himself. I'm curious what he has to say about it all.
      • pcrepairshop, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I would just like to know why they are suing someone for distributing a podcast filed under Creative Commons? If they don't want anyone to distribute it they should of filed for Copyright.
      • andburn1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2He has to choose when he speaks and what he says very carefully, because we all know it will get a ***** of attention.
    • sennmen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Please, stop trying to start wars; this is simply to protect the trademark as atari77 mentioned, not specifically for sharing the episodes early. I really think they could care less about that.
    • TeatimeGrommit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The trademark thing was bogus. Having a trademark gives no protection and confers no rights with respect to domain names. The following legal case gives the precedent:
      http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/95240.htm

      Basically, the lawyers were engaging in "conventional puffery" which is fancy language for lawyers lying through their teeth about what is and is not legal.
  • colinwilson, on 10/11/2007, -46/+129Rev3 would be idiots to not shut down a site that lets people get something they want you to pay for for free. If you don't want to pay just wait the few extra days!
  • wop4life, on 10/11/2007, -39/+105I'm sure they are just doing this to protect their trademark. They know as well as anyone that you can't stop piracy. They know that no matter what they do if people want to watch the show for free they will find a way. Also remember, THEY DON'T CHARGE TO WATCH DIGGNATION. People who DONATE get to watch the episode a couple days early as a thank you for the support. They still give the show away for free to all you ungrateful assholes. I'm a paying member of revision3 and I probably have only watched and episode early once or twice. I am a member because I want to support them, not so I get the content a day early or whatever. This is just something that they have to do to protect themselves. None of you can honestly believe that Kevin thinks he can stop the show from getting out early or is even trying to really stop it. This is about protecting their corporate identity not about getting their FREE show a day or two early.
    • jcounterman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23While I agree with your sentiment, you are wrong about their need to protect their trademark, in this case. By removing content, they are upholding their copyrights, which they do NOT need to protect under the law. The only trademark issue here is the change from "diggdown" to "iggdown".
      • GGzah, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Actually, they did make a point of mentioning on a previous Digg episode (one or two shows back) how sites that distributed their content outside of the Rev3 frame work screwed them up, as they were thus unable to determine the true number of people downloaded and viewing their content and thus would not be able to get the proper advertising revenue from their sponsor's. Presumably this was what Kevin had on his mind when he was talking about that.
    • Dunnix, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Wrong, this is not about protecting their corporate identity . The worst part of the Cease and Desist order isn't the Trademark violation of the Digg name. Thats easy and painless to fix. The part about "We are going to sue you unless you stop posting Diggnation on your website." that part is whats getting on everyones nerves. Its a News Podcast! I Don't want to get it a few days late.
      Rev3 is just trying to get money out of Diggnation when it was originally a free podcast. The show is worthless a few days late. Thats like me trying to sell you last weeks newspaper.
    • maz2331, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0It's copyrighted video, so they are fully within their rights to stop this activity. The newspaper analogy isn't quite right. It would be like you reprinting last weeks newspaper. It's illegal!!!
      I'm no fan whatsoever of the MPAA or RIAA gangsters, but some things are just too blatent for anyone to ignore or condone.
  • VtmnR, on 10/11/2007, -32/+623 days of waiting won't kill anybody; and for those that pay for the early preview, they deserve it since they help out this company much more than I do.

    This really is just a conflict of patience for the user. Personally, I'd rather wait the few extra days a week to get my DiggNation, help Revision 3 by adding my number into their statistics for their sponsorships/advertising records, and be able to sleep at night.

    • Rojahon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I have no problem waiting. My problem is that if they want to enforce waiting legally then they need to change how they're licensing their content.
      • al3efroman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Is it even licensed under CC while only available to subscribers? I'm pretty sure they can use whatever license they want when they release and then offer it under Creative Commons at the later date.
  • Runik, on 10/11/2007, -30/+13I tried diggdown before .. It was slow and annoying and not worth my time .. I just payed for a year with Revision 3
    • robz0r, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I consistently get 1Mb DL Speed off their mirrors, nice try though.
    • HerrSchnuff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1exactly,
      that is kinda slow...
  • ABadInAlbany, on 10/27/2007, -30/+92Hypocrisy at its best.
    • GuyHitByTruck, on 10/11/2007, -3/+28Especially since Diggnation is released under the Creative Commons lisence. What kind of legal ground does Rev3 have to stand on demanding the site take down it's (now all of a sudden) copyrighted media?
      • MixedSpleens, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Its always been copyrighted. Creative commons is a LICENSE it does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you please. in fact if there is Google ads on a site technically your using the content for commercial use, which is a violation of most creative commons terms.
    • worldsbestgamer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Why did it take so many comments for someone to point this out.
    • battlefield1985, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5Hey, The little douche bag stopped sending in statistics, not to mention he was showing off how much money people were donating to him...so STFU.
  • mirzar, on 10/11/2007, -16/+6diggdown was doing illegal stuff - but then again we have all downloaded content illegally. -- even kevin rose admits that he downloaded episodes of the office from torrents before the episodes came out on iTunes.
    • est1979, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6but he does still pay for them via itunes, he is still buying into the system correctly. he just figures, correctly mind you, that if he has paid for the material, then he should be able to watch it, regardless of where it comes from.
      • MWeather, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3He didn't pay for a full-resolution copy, he paid for a crappy itunes copy.
    • Cwo655321, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4then by your logic,
      getting the content early is ok also, since I would have eventually gotten it for free regardless from where it came from.
      no?
  • Vulpes, on 10/11/2007, -23/+9Digg for the cause to be free. Don't let Revision3 bend down to MPAA Standards.
    • samuelcotterall, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7No, just let them get into a position where they cannot find sponsors and cancel the show...
  • COlson87, on 10/11/2007, -13/+160Okay fans. You're missing the key point in this article. I don't watch Diggnation, but from the article:

    One fan makes a particularly interesting point: “Sorry, but I have a problem with anyone from Rev3 saying that we shouldn't download it early from [site name removed] when there are probably 10 or more episodes of Alex and Kevin clearly stating they have downloaded and do download stuff illegally...”
    • rudy23, on 10/11/2007, -29/+13Let me tell you a more valid point. Put yourself in their shoes.
      • SAOSiN, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Well It's not fair that they get to be special.
      • madmac66, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15in their shoes is a couple of hackers and slackers cum good. in their shoes is a couple of dudes who confess to stealing other entities copyrighted material. the comment was : “Sorry, but I have a problem with anyone from Rev3 saying that we shouldn't download it early from [site name removed] when there are probably 10 or more episodes of Alex and Kevin clearly stating they have downloaded and do download stuff illegally..."

        This is the root point of this argument. Yes, they are within their rights to protect their product. Yes they are in business and business is not cheap, and they need to make money. All of those points apply to all the music, games, movies that K & A have hacked and stolen too.

        If R3 is the party most up in arms about this issue, then they need to seperate themselves from K & A, and the thoughts and opinions on Diggnation. Maybe force them to censor themselves regarding their illegal downloading habits. It looks bad for the parent company to contradict the behavior of its prime spokes-people.
    • COlson87, on 10/27/2007, -8/+71I understand where they are coming from and why they are doing it. But this means mixed signals for users. You can't tell people you download stuff illegally and then get pissed when people steal your content. How does that make sense?
    • jcounterman, on 10/11/2007, -14/+19They are not going after the individuals who download the shows from "diggdown", but rather going after the site that is distributing their content to the masses. We've heard Kevin and Alex say that they have downloaded pirated material, but have they ever mentioned that they actively make pirated material available to large groups of people?
      • rudy23, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4another good point. cant imaginee why so many people are getting their panties in bunch over this
      • JCSaint, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12"have they ever mentioned that they actively make pirated material available to large groups of people?"

        If you use Bittorrent, aren't you making it available as you download it? I'm assuming they, like most of the civilized world, uses some kind of bittorrent client.
        • jcounterman, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2If they are set up as seeders; my only point is that they have never mentioned that they are doing this.
          • JCSaint, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4But don't you upload the same time you download? Isn't that the whole point of bittorrent? I though "seeders" were simply people who were done downloading but still uploading and "leechers" were those that are still doing both?

            Maybe I've got my bittorrent terms confused but that's how I thought it worked.
        • DJMajickman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You can use BT without seeding or sharing. it's not hard with the proper client to set it to not share back out. It's not nice and you'll get banned from most sites if they find out you're not sharing.
      • Yodacola, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1" . . .ever mentioned that they actively make pirated material available to large groups of people?"
        They haven't just mentioned it, but made an entire show demonstrating it. See The Broken. The US only has a one hundredth of a person after them, at best.
    • COlson87, on 10/11/2007, -5/+38The problem jcounterman, is that most users reading this are going to "go easy" on Kevin Rose because of Digg and the other great things he's done. He's a cool guy, don't get me wrong. But just because you're a fan doesn't mean you can overlook this hypocrisy.

      Again, I understand that the situations are different, but the moral ***** is all the same.
      • jcounterman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15I agree that a large chunk of the Digg community may come to Kevin's defense just because he is Kevin.

        I, however, don't really care one way or another about Kevin; I've always seen a distinction between downloading content and sharing content. Preventing others from distributing your content is "ok" with me, but going after individuals is when my skin begins to crawl.
    • mc7winkie, on 10/11/2007, -10/+13This is crap. I have been using diggdown forever. Threatening with 200,000 in legal fees? What I also don't get is that all over his site he said it was not affiliated with digg nor revision 3. So there is no confusion. Thanks digg legal team for being bullying jack asses.
      • omarciddo, on 10/11/2007, -13/+2Sorry, but the shows distributed on (d)iggdown were in fact affiliated with Rev3.
        • mc7winkie, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12Are you borderline retarded? He is not affiliated with revision 3. I swear the digg community is going down the *****.
    • thelastknowngod, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4i dont know about anyone else but i look at the situation and think.. mpaa, riaa, microsoft... they are huge companies that screw people left and right. rev3 is a company that is all about the users. it always has been. when someone does this they screw the rev3 community. i would rather pay the donation just because they are a good bunch of people doing business the way it should be done. the guy was wrong for even starting the site.
    • xaerius, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Revision3 is a separate legal entity by law. The legal team is not directly protecting Kevin Rose, it is protecting Revision3 and its copyrights. Kevin Rose may personally pirate, but he does not do it through Revision3.
      • gwhardyiv, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Kinda like how Dick Cheney isn't a member of the executive branch?
    • xaerius, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2(double post)
    • TeatimeGrommit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The "early posting" is probably illegal, not fair use, etc.. The site name / trademark issue is bogus.
      The following legal case set the precedent:
      http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/95240.htm

      Holding a trademark does not confer any rights wrt domain names. e.g. I can register MicrosoftSucksMyHairyBalls.com and MS can't do anything about it other than try to buy it off me.
  • 4815162342, on 10/11/2007, -20/+2so that's why my rss feed stopped working....

    doesn't matter. totally rad show > diggnation. if only alex would get off the show.
    • NinjaBoy, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2I was going to totally agree TRS > diggnation but i ***** LOVE alex.
    • madmac66, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2agreed, alex is a PITA
    • BryanJK, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3alex is the funniest guy actually on the show
  • aburd, on 10/11/2007, -20/+9Isn't the revision3 package like $5? If you like something a whole lot, isn't it worth $5?
    • willizm, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Is that your policy on sex as well?
    • thwackitechnica, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1What's lame is when you pay, but don't get the show early anyway. I had a subscription, but lost my password. By the time they emailed it to me, the episode had been available publicly for 3 days; I requested it the day it came out for members.

      Do the math. That's not good service. Even for $5 I expect decent service.
  • rudy23, on 10/11/2007, -29/+21I dont see what the big deal is with this story. he was doing something illegal and was told not to do it. plain and simple.
    • JCSaint, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7It's the hypocrisy aspect. They have no consistent position when it comes to copyrighted material.
      • Disjunto, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4they have the same position most people on this site do, fine to download stuff unless your the one losing out on the money
    • scrubadub, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8It's not illegal to redistribute creative commons content, why dont people understand this.
  • jamima69z, on 10/11/2007, -10/+69hypocrisy is hypocrisy,whether it's kevin,or the riaa,or the mpaa,or microsoft,or whomever.

    if you want to make excuses for some,and piss on others,that's fine by me,but it is what it is.
    • jamesdraycott, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I agree with you guys that Kevin is out of line, He has admited breaking the law with piracy in the past so he has no right to defend his business now. I stole a penny sweet from a pick and mix last year, I just had my car stollen but i'm not going to the police. oh no. How hypocritical would I be if i did.
  • Nerfdude, on 10/11/2007, -11/+46love the show, but between subscriptions and the beer money website.. look, i'm not paying for it. i've been using diggdown for six months and love it, good luck striker!
    • Darth_tater, on 10/11/2007, -6/+23i also find the asking for beer offensive. Digg.com makes a *lot* in advertising, and the sponsors at the beginning and end of every podcast should be enough to cover alex/kevin's flight and the $10-$20 of beer they go through and then some. Asking for people to donate beer, and going to the great lengths of setting up a website to do so, is quite offensive especially because i am already subjected to adds on digg.com and adds in their podcasts.
      • RMantaRay, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6They're not asking people to buy them beer, Darth. They're saying that because so many people keep sending them beers, it would be better to just send money. This way, they won't continue to have overflowing refrigerators (as is the case, or was the case, when people were sending physical beers to them), and they can also use the money to buy drinks for the fans at the live shows. Its a way for people to feel like they're sending in beers, without having the negatives of sending in beers.
      • miles32, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3there are ads on digg?
        • raymore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2yeah there are, Kevin is admitted it in one diggnation, just saying "they are small and most of the time go unnoticed."
    • HsoKinees, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1doesn't a large chunk of the funding go towards bandwidth for distribution and the film crew?
    • sooneriplaw, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Then don't pay for it. The point is, diggnation is free from Rev3 directly. It comes out a few days early for those that pay a little. If you really need to have it a few days early the option is to pay. Instead some random dude took diggnation and redistributed to a bunch of people who didn't pay. Again, if you don't want to pay you can still get the show from Rev3.
  • jayselle, on 10/11/2007, -19/+14I have no problem with them protecting their trademark and making sure other sites don't try to affiliate with them without permission. They have a reputation to protect.

    Kevin and Alex have admitted to illegally downloading copyrighted content, however, they are using bittorrent. If you don't want to pay the Rev3 subscription fee then use bittorrent. I doubt they will have a problem with that.

    I personally just let iTunes download it every week for me.

    Some of you kiddies need to get a grip.
    • Yibn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13They wouldn't like that at all. One of the other main reasons they are doing this is because Striker isn't reporting back the shows viewer statistics from DIggdown which he used to. So using bittorrent would be even worse, because Striker said he was working on making a better algorithm for Diggdown, and bittorrent gathers no such information. I mean the guys at Rev3 aren't going to look at torrent downloads and seeders and waste their time figuring that ***** out.
      • marvinmatthew, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Striker isn't reporting the download numbers because the sponsors won't accept the numbers he's giving. They have no way to know if they're accurate or inflated because they're coming from a third party.
    • Scheissen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8That's where Kevin is screwing himself now. People are going to get it off of bittorrent and those number of downloaders wont be able to be reported, which iggdown.net was willing to do after that certain episode aired. I don't get why people pay Revision3 $20. They have sponsors that we all have to listen to. I can see why they wanted to remove "digg" from the URL.
      • Sara21183, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2People don't have to give Rev3 $20! They can get it for free if they have a little patience and wait a few days, even then it's not $20, it's $5 or $10 a month or $50 a year, either way it's completly optional and you can still get the show for $0!
      • celeronxl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If you wait a few days, the show sucks. The shows are dated enough as-is by Saturday. Waiting until Wednesday is just pushing it way too far for a show discussing news.
        • acumenprobitas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Yeah, because the information presented in Diggnation is DEFINITELY time-sensitive and to be considered "news"... 100 Most Beautiful Women in the World? PLEASE! That story is SO June
  • Razster, on 10/11/2007, -16/+3Screw Diggnation... They're just a bunch of dicks bitch'in about weakass *****.
    I go to Rev3 for my man Bert Monroy, All Hail Bert! - I would pay to watch Bert make more tutorials over paying to watch a couple of monkeys bs on a couch, might as well pop in Wayne's World instead... ***** if Kevin Rose helped with either or... someone would have made a digg site sooner or later, the guy is a prick.
    • Claw787, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3PixelPerfect would've not come to life, if Diggnation wasn't a success at Revisoin3.
  • RadicalEdward, on 10/11/2007, -1/+32Am i wrong when i remember Kevin saying he didn't care if people redistributed the show back in like the first few episodes? I know Rev3's gonna want to know how many viewers their are for advertising purposes, but still.
    • netburnr, on 10/11/2007, -7/+14Diggdown.net counts the downloads and puts them on a stats page. He even went so far as to try and send them the stats weekly but they never responded.

      What I don't get is, why do WE have to pay to download the *****, when THEY have SPONSORS? Shouldn't the SPONSORSHIP COVER EVERYTHING?

      Come on FFS Kevin and Alex and Digg and Revision3, get your act together. If you want to be THE place for web 2.0 Video production, then act the part and stop being capitalist pigs.
      • MWeather, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3
        "What I don't get is, why do WE have to pay to download the *****, when THEY have SPONSORS? Shouldn't the SPONSORSHIP COVER EVERYTHING?"

        I take it you don't pay for cable/satelite TV?
    • Sara21183, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3um, WE don't HAVE to pay for it it's FREE!! If you don't wanna pay, why don't you just WAIT a few days when it comes out on iTunes. If you weren't so IMPATIENT, and didn't feel so ENTITLED then you'd understand that concept! They are a small company who is trying to give us entertainment, and they don't demand ANYTHING from us, just that we get THEIR content from them so that they can pay their bills.
  • kewlrichie, on 10/11/2007, -7/+25http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e195/kamikaze_puppy/DramaLlama.jpg
  • Redlobo, on 10/11/2007, -19/+16Strange I though Revision3.com was a business trying to make money. My bad.
    • iadiggs10, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4That's not the point. Obviously they wanted him to stop so they can make more money, but as the proprietor of the site points out: the Saturday fee is a "donation", thus people should have the option of not paying it and still getting the "free" podcast known as diggnation on Saturday.
  • Ohmslaw, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8You should not post the early preview when only people that "Donate" get access. If you waited the 3 days and then posted it I doubt they would have an issue. Just my guess though maybe they would. I hate to say it but you’re in the wrong here not Rev3.
    • Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4There would still be an issue. It's not about protecting the donor fee, it's about properly assessing viewership in order to accurately relay information to potential sponsors and investors. Without concise numbers about the audience base, there won't be more sponsors. No sponsors means no money. No money means no more show.
  • Lax32, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5I think its sad that diggdown even exists...

    What does every single pirate say when asked about if they feel guilty for stealing music? "I just do it on the stuff I wouldnt buy otherwise. If there is an artist I really respect, I'll go pay for their album or donate to them somehow".

    Yet here is diggnation, a show that is completely free for everyone and a show that Im assuming has the respect of its users, and you still pirate it and screw them over.
    • Seph7, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4I totally agree, all you lot complaining about them downloading stuff illegally and being hypocritical, well I'm guessing most of the stuff they get isn't free and available to download for free a few days later. They haven't demanded you pay anything for any of the episodes you watch , even their advertisements are cleverly woven into the shows not like add breaks.

      If you hate them for doing this why are you even watching a show, where you hate the 2 presenters. Stop being little brats and just respect something your getting for free and show a little bit of support by either paying or waiting a few days.If your watching it on Saturday or Tuesday you still gota wait a week for the next episode anyway.
    • Yawgmoth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11It shouldn't be illegal though, they release diggnation under a creative commons license. Even the most strict creative commons license allows people to non commercially distribute their work
  • ArthurSucks, on 10/11/2007, -6/+88They'd better remove the Creative Commons logo off their page if they want to keep this up.
    • DeathonWheels, on 10/11/2007, -0/+27I thought the whole point of the Creative Commons license was that you were allowed to do stuff like this. I also just noticed that the creative commons logo on the Revision 3 page doesn't link to the version of the license they are using.
    • ihavenoposse, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Right at the bottom of the page: User-posted content, unless source quoted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Public Domain License.

      Which means the stuff that YOU post is under a CC license. Not the proprietary stuff.
    • jccalhoun, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8There are lots of different version of the Creative Commons license. However, I went to the site and can't find anything about which version they are using.

      If it is a non-commercial use license and the diggdown site also had ads on it I could see how it was in violation of the license. However, without being specific about which Creative Commons license Revision3 uses there's no way to know.
  • totalabyss, on 10/27/2007, -10/+71I don't see diggdown as doing illegal activity.

    Let us now forget:
    revision3 also distributes a great channel called: http://revision3.com/thebroken

    In which you watch Kevin Rose along with his sidekick "give a step-by-step process on how to hack the Xbox 360 to create backups of all your games!"

    So let see...hosting a video podcast when he has access to it versus showing the internet how to crack your xbox and make illegal copies.

    Rev3 should get their heads out of their asses and enjoy the distribution because the people who download it early are in no ways going to pay for it.
    • omarciddo, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1OK people he didn't shut them down, he just asked them to change their name.
      • Scheissen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12how about you do some ***** research. Striker changed the name. He is threatened with a $200,000 lawsuit to stop hosting the videos.
    • est1979, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4then they should wait 3 days

      no one said the had to pay for it.
    • montiff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4This may be over-reacting but here is my letter to Digg:

      Dear douche bags,

      Where did Diggdown go ?

      And why are you pulling a Viacom ?

      Your user:
      Montiff
    • sooneriplaw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"So let see...hosting a video podcast when he has access to it versus showing the internet how to crack your xbox and make illegal copies."

      One is legal, one is not. Hosting a person's copyrighted content for redistribution without permission from the author is not legal. Making backup copies of xbox games is (possibly) legal under fair use case law (it's not entirely clear). The point is, fans of the show should be supporting the show, not supporting a guy who gives away a paid-for option for free. This takes money from diggnation/Rev3. Whether or not diggnation/Rev3 needs the money is another issue entirely. I'm a fan of diggnation, but I don't pay for it. Instead, I get my copy for free at the right time. I follow the rules. I enjoy the show. If I wanted it earlier I would pay the few dollars - not rip off the show. Just don't know why we can't support the show that apparently everyone (including the infringing website) seems to enjoy.
  • herrshuster, on 10/11/2007, -13/+20Look #1: diggnation has to make some money somewhere
    #2: BUT it's not from fans...it's from sponsors...and sponsors NEED to know how much attention they are getting. Downloading from Rev3 is the ONLY way they know how many views they are getting. Good show kevin
    • NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19Very, very true. If you'll recall, Kevin said a few weeks back that people who are redistributing it were screwing up their sponsorships because they can't get an accurate count of who is watching. Well, you know, the incentive program of early downloads is what enables the problem to occur. Regardless of whether or not you think you SHOULD be able to get the early release without paying, people WILL redistribute it. So, the best way is to just ask for donations and eliminate the early release. Remove the means for it and you eliminate the problem.

      What Kevin has to weigh is how many people he thinks he'd lose by eliminating the incentive for donating.
      • iammike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Totally agree with the elimination of the early release, if the "Real" problem is because they can't prove the numbers to their sponsors, the early release donations are less worth than the money they lose by people downloading it early from somewhere else.
    • TridenTBoy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2If you recall...DIGGNATION HAS ***** 10MINUTES OF SPONSORS ON EVERY EPISODE!
  • NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -10/+15I don't pay for Diggnation, and I wait for it a few days later. Even before all of this I was beginning to wonder why I was still watching Diggnation. The show is not what it once was. I feel like they're working too hard to cater to the teenage audience that makes up the majority of their viewers. Not to mention, when are these guys going to stop drinking themselves silly every episode? If you really want to watch something Revision3 that's worth your time, switch to the Totally Rad Show. They don't get drunk, they're not trying to appeal to teens, and they talk about things that people want to hear about, not just give an overview of the extremely popular stories that everyone has already seen on digg.

    Maybe Revision3 should consider an editorial approach to digg, and make a show that talks about the most interesting stories that didn't get so many diggs instead? And you know, actually have a conversation about them instead of, "Wow, that's crazy," or "Whoa, that's really cool," or "Wow, she's hot"?
    • shredswithpiks, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1the only reason I ever watched diggnation was because they drink.
      • rudy23, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14If you send me beer i can send you videos me getting drunk.
    • NoNom, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5People watch for their opinions on the articles? I thought it was for the side banter and odd personal stories.
    • NoNom, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5*note to self*: only hit "submit comment" once no matter how slow Digg is
  • EnderMB, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1Gotta love the hypocrisy. As much as I don't dislike Diggnation Revision3 taking this stance when Digg has essentially built a freedom reputation around downloading and alleged piracy is bull. If money was that big a problem they could have just bought the site and offered a better service and taken ad revenue.
    • EnderMB, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Oh how I love getting dugg down for having an opinion. Digg users really need to learn to respect the opinions of others, or at least adding responses to why they disagree with someone without sounding like a 12 year old.
  • RavagesOfTime, on 10/11/2007, -15/+10People still think everything on the Internet is going to be free? Please.
    Kevin Rose doesn't really have 60 million dollars, you know.
    • EnderMB, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3No, but what does Diggnation really offer its users? If I wanted to watch people drink beer and talk about stuff I'd go to a bar, and guess what, a lot of bars don't charge people for entry.
  • birkoph, on 10/11/2007, -10/+30Both Alex and Kevin have said MANY times that they pirate either mp3's or TV shows or Movies that they wont' want to see, in the older episodes. But when their stuff get pirated they turn in to little faggy bitches. " Nooo dont' download, our stuff... listen to us... pleeeeaaase. whhhaaaa whaaa boo hoo boo"

    Doesn't Diggnation get like $10,000 per sponcor , per episode anyways???
    Lets not forget about all those people who are giving them money via their give us beer money website.


    • molove920, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Thats just childish. Your comparing something you can get for free to something you know you have to pay for but don't want to.
    • sneakerelph, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1They've also stated that they don't mind people downloading the episodes early. This is probably just their lawyers talking. If you don't protect a copyright, you lose the right to have that copyright. So even though this probably isn't doing much harm, they still need to protect their copyright so that they get to keep it.
      • echo1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3no, they have to protect the Trademark. copyright is owned and doesn't need to be protected to keep it, you have it for a certain amount of years. however their show is "copyrighted" under the creative commons license, so in a sense they really don't have a right to charge for it, which is why they still release it for free and the $5 a month is not technically a "subscription". that's why it's ***** they are trying to nail this guy for distributing their "copyrighted" material
  • jvernon, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6I'm not 100% sure on this. But I think that if you do not actively protect your trademark, you can lose your trademark. So regardless of whether Rev3 WANTS to send a cease and desist to this guy, they need to send one. Their hands are tied, unless they want to be in danger of losing their trademark.

    I think I remember that from a cyber-law course I took last year. Please correct me if I am wrong.
    • scrubadub, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2There's two issues here, they changed their name to igg and they still got sued for copyright infrindgement. Which doesnt make sense cause diggnation is creative commons'd
  • robotplague, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2I used to watch Diggnation a looong time ago. But at some point the dude bro/beer/frat house vibe and humor got way too much for me. I understand why they're shutting this kid down, it's not hypocritical. You have to realize that Kevin and Alex are just mouth pieces, they don't represent the whole company.
  • Volred, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1I don't watch diggnation. I don't know what/who rev3 is. And I don't know why diggdown.com is in such a state of disarray.

    Do the owners of Digg own rev3?
    Isn't the Diggnation broadcast free? When/how do people pay for diggnation broadcast?

    I'm confused.
    • echo1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The creators/owners of rev3 created and now own rev3 for the most part.
      Diggnation is broadcast free starting on Tuesdays, but if you pay a fee of $5 a month you get to watch it when it's actually released on saturdays.
      Diggdown.net was run by someone who subscribed to that early release, and then in turn would help post the show so that people who hadn't subscribed to the early release could view it before it's released on Tuesday (the shows are usually taped on wednesdays or thursdays, so the free release on tuesday means the stories are about a week old at least).
  • prestige, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4I enjoyed watching for it's grass-roots, underground spirit. I now see Rev3 as yet another fledgling commercial whore. Shame on you!
  • niggler, on 10/11/2007, -8/+17i can't believe those greedy bastards at revision3 are giving away stuff for free....they are definately in the same league as the MPAA . they are the same as those buskers street who play and hope you will donate if you like their work, evil evil people
    • niggler, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3also plz excuse my retarded sentences and grammar :P
  • Johnny9794, on 10/11/2007, -14/+31I don't care 5 bucks a day, five bucks a month or even 5 ***** dollars a year to watch them drink beer and talk bout "getting" pilot license and how nice Kevin's piece of ***** apple laptop is, I can goto a ***** bar and spend that 5 bucks on a pitcher of beer and talk that same ***** that they been doing in the last couple episodes of BS.

    Digg me down or up i don't give a ***** :).
    • maffiou, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Man, you've wasted 30 seconds ranting, these could have been spent better in front of a pint or 2...
    • owlfeathers, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Then spend the five bucks there and stop being a bitch about a show you don't like. Turn the ***** computer off if you hate it so much.
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -7/+11The issue here is not so much about not paying the $5 to access the show early, but rather that when people get diggnation through sites like diggdown, Revision3 has no way of knowing how many people are downloading the show. If they don't have accurate statistics, they are not able to report them to advertisers, and therefore will not make as much money.
    • netpro2k, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6If this was truly the case, they would realize that releasing the show at the same time for everyone is the best way to get accurate statistics. Donations are supposed to be a voluntary contribution purely because you want to support the show. The "perks" of donations should come from the satisfaction you get from supporting someone or something you enjoy or care about. This donation model is nothing more than a subscription fee in (a very poor) disguise.
    • Roke, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1that wasn't even an issue, the owner of diggdown was in the process of creating the script for the new tracker, and since he used to report numbers before, he obviously was going to report numbers again after the script was done.
  • civperc, on 10/11/2007, -12/+8The nerve this punk has against Rev3 is ridiculous. They're a legit business trying to make a few bucks and set up a model that works. The dolt running (d)iggdown.net needs to realize he's nothing more than a malicious twit that isn't helping the situation. For him to compare Rev3 to MPAA/RIAA is totally out of line; apples and oranges.
    • DeeX, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5a few bucks?

      They get 10k for EACH sponsor.

      Also Alex and Kevin are pure ***** hypocrites.
      • civperc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2If you've got the gall to throw something out there as void of basis as your claim against Kevin and Alex is, back it up.
  • Timan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Heh, well diggnation also used to be about recent news stores on the site and what not. Now its 2 stories (prob a pre-taped episode) and a bunch of sponsors and them ranting about a beer fund.
  • willizm, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Is this that big of a deal. I personally just wait for the show to be available on democracy and have it auto download. I'm having a hard time keeping up with all the content that rev3 is putting out to begin with(which is a good thing as it's alot of great content for free). Besides, I'm sure even Kevin downloads from diggdown and if he likes it, then he will download it on Tuesday legally similarly as he proclaims about file sharing of apps and music, right?
  • omarciddo, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8I'll let you guys have your flamewar. As for me, today is Tuesday, so I'm gonna go watch diggnation.
    • DaletonaDave, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2I already watched it yesterday. For FREE!! ;)
  • IpsoPhatso87, on 10/11/2007, -10/+50Do any of the allofmp3.com conversations ring a bell?

    Kevin: "Oh, but I don't think it's really illegal."
    Alex: "Dude, your paying 99 cents for a whole album."
    Kevin: "Yeah, but it still may be legal."

    *****. Pure hypocrisy.
    • RMantaRay, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5Its not all about it being downloaded at another place for free/earlier. Its about not reporting accurate numbers to sponsors to make the money to continue making diggnation. Why don't people seem to understand this?
      • mlaskowski, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6then why use an early download to get money from fans? Get rid of the early download, problem solved no need for early download sites and all the numbers for sponsors will be accurate.
        • owlfeathers, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Just curious, but were you aware that Rev3 and Digg are businesses? They have to make money somehow, and for *****'s sake. It's five dollars.
        • Dunnix, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Five dollars a month... But isnt the whole point of a freaking podcast to let users freely download and upload to their favorite device. Rev3 demanding donations from fans is crazy.
      • Scoresheet, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Its a different, VOLUNTARY, source of revenue. why is that so difficult to understand?
    • benthompson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Calling them hypocrits is incorrect with your example because AllofMP3.com got around certain legal issues by owning (supposedly) the rights of the music in Russia. Also, this is why they were so cheap. Was it legal, yes but was it unethical probably. Then again, how many Diggers use other torrent sites or Oink?

      And, in regards to another user claiming they 'demand' the donations. They still provide the content for free, just a mere 2 days after the others. If you crave the show that much you can't wait till Tuesday, I would suggest working half an hour or opening up a Lemonade Stand on the weekend to make 5 extra bucks for the month...just a thought.
  • Fixxxer, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4They aren't trying to stop this guy from redistributing their content, they're just trying to protect their trademark. If you do not actively protect your trademark, i.e. actively pursue people who use it, you can lose it. If Digg were to let anyone use their name, they would essentially be saying it's OK for other corporations to use it as well. Then, before you know it, we'd have "Digg-Netscape" on our hands. In order to prevent something like that from happening, they have to pursue anyone and everyone who uses the Digg name. Either they let everyone use it, or they let nobody use it. Unfortunately, that's just how it is.
    • Yawgmoth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7RTFA-
      "Your reproduction, distribution, and public performance of our client’s federally protected copyrighted works constitutes multiple counts of copyright infringement. ... we must demand that you immediately cease and desist the reproduction, and public performance and display of all audiovisual works owned by Revision3 Corporation "

      They ARE telling him to stop redistributing their work, even though it's under a creative commons license. Personally, I have no problem with a company trying to protect its copyright, but if diggnation is going to do that, then they need to admit that they're not releasing their works under creative commons and slap a real copyright notice up there.
      • echo1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3exactly, the most succinctly put out of anyone who has commented
  • nightstrm, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I've always thought their views on openly admitting they pirate things and then stating that it's not cool for someone else to distribute their material early or free of charge a bit hypocritical. Oh well, they should know that it will never stop. Haven't they said before that artists should be glad that their music and works are being enjoyed by countless number of people who may, in turn, become a fan and spend money on them?
  • lasko, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2What i'm more curious about is if they asked him to take it down first, you know had a decent discussion with him about it first. It really bugs me when someones first reaction to something like this is a threat. It has always seemed childish to me. Now i understand it's a business but it upsets me when Kevin & company care more about the money(being donation or whatever) then the fact that thousands of people not only like watching/listening to diggnation, but would like to enjoy it as soon as possible. and before someone says "try being in his shoes" i already have been and it's really not the end of the world(or the end of profits) if people download your service(music, movies, tv shows, etc.)
    • vypergts, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Did you RTFA? That's what a cease and desist letter is.
      • lasko, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2a cease and desist letter is not the same as having a conversation with someone about the situation. and ending(i'm assuming ending anyways) the letter with "…if you do not comply with the demands of this letter, we will be forced to seek damages and attorney’s fees…” sounds like diggnation is threatening him to me, and that hardly sounds like a decent conversation between the 2 parties. again, it's childish when someones first reaction is to threaten another person. like i said, it's not the end of the world, or profits, if people download any media. reading this is just pretty upsetting. i expected better of kevin and everyone at diggnation.

  • streamfire, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18Sounds like the tea pot is calling the kettle black.. how nice... I hope someone takes a queue from this and starts posting the new episodes on bit torrent and usenet....
    • Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Tea pots are generally shiny and clean...
  • coollettuce, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15I download movies before they are on DVD, sure I could pay and watch it it the theaters, but honestly it's more convenient to download them early. How many diggers downloaded SiCKO? I love diggnation and me being impatient, I'd rather just download them early. My understanding was that the diggdown guy was letting Rev3 know how many people downloaded. I really just don't understand some things that Rev3 does, do they really expect fans to wait the extra days? And also wtf is up with beersfordiggnation.com? They make $10k or more per sponsor, per episode, I think they can afford a six pack.

    The way I see this going is two ways; either they start releasing the shows on the same date for everyone, just like they do with every other Rev3 show, or people will continue to get them early from another source. I for now, will be doing the latter.
    • drem, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0As someone has already posted, they ddin't make the beer site to be cheapskates, it's because people were sending beer through the mail and they themselves said in an episode that it costs too much for the fans so they were going to create that site where they could donate a couple of bucks for the show for them or live shows for those who attend.

      Wasn't meant to "scam" more money of fans.
    • echo1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4yeah but it does still seem like a scam when we're paying for their beer and they're out buying 600 dollar iPhones. the problem with that site is that yeah people used to send beer but now that they have it set up like this its easier to get money from people, more people are willing to donate than to send a six pack.
      • Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You realize people get paid to do stuff, right? They're not sitting around for their health. There's a team of people working to make the show.
      • echo1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4 i understand they're getting paid for it, and that we should support them, and i'm all for that. i'm just saying the setup for the beer thing is a bit shady when _most_ of their paycheck comes from other sources. we can still support the show as fans but its not like saying the beer site is shady is the same as saying i don't think they should get paid for this.
  • vypergts, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1Typical digg-bash article from wired. Nothing new here, please move along. This is no different than when the digg legal team went after the digg site clones. It's protecting their trademark (which they are required to do by law in order to keep the trademark). The site was hosting their content which they have to protect for a lot of reasons (mainly to defend their revenue stream). And people whining about them saying on the show that they pirate stuff, STFU. It's different, there's no reason to pirate diggnation IT'S FREE.
  • tim2788, on 10/11/2007, -10/+6We all steal content but we dont complain when we are stopped, because at the end of the day.. it's wrong. If you were having your own content stolen from you then of course you would want it stopped. Regardless of whether or not you steal content too. Might be hypocritical but hey! face it, its true!
    • lasko, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3i disagree, i think it depends on the person. not to sound like i'm on a moral high ground or anything, but when people downloaded any of my content, it never bothered me. i never have and never will consider downloading stealing, unless the person downloading was selling what they downloaded to make a profit for themselves. but thats a totally different scenerio than whats going on here.
  • Typhoon2009, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Who the hell are Revision 3?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 162 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.