So why not say that up front instead of modding my posts (showing that you read them) and then not responding? I understand that you might be busy and taking a while to respond, but you are just awful at managing expectations and reacting to situations properly.
Just. Awful.
EDIT: Additionally, maybe this should have been thought out before threads and posts were made willy nilly on the topic.
Additionally, the part of this "policy" where even talking about torrents makes no sense.
I would be ridiculously shocked if there was actually a law on the books that says saying something along the lines of "I'm going to torrent X" or "I'm going to download X" without then providing a link on the site or physically hosting the content on the site would get RvB in trouble. In those cases no illegal activity has actually taken place since just saying that you are going to pirate something ISN'T ACTUALLY ILLEGAL.
And even if illegal activity did take place the onus falls on the user and Rooster Teeth would have no liability. That's how Ustream stays in business and it's been held up in court.
No. Linking to streaming sites like YouTube, Blip, Hulu, etc. where other people have posted legitimate (or illegitimate) content is not a problem. Those sites have to field takedown notices for this very reason; and if you're the one posting infringing content on Youtube, then you're likely going to have to deal with consequences on that site. Of course, if both a legitimate and illegitimate streamed version, why the hell are you linking the illegitimate one anyway?
RoosterTeeth has had an ongoing policy of not supporting illegal activity whatsoever when it comes to copyrighted material. We've never allowed people to post anything related to torrents or cracking consoles or any of that kind of crap. Why you're all of a sudden throwing a hissy fit over this policy, which hasn't changed, is a bit puzzling.
He's not throwing a hissy fit he is asking for clarification on what is or isn't gonna get people banned in the very loosely wordy rule Hobbie posted. If this is an old rule then why does it need restating in it's own topic. if it's a new rule then clarification helps us understand it.
The fact is that it's clear we were all under the impression that the previous rule was "If you link someone to an illegal download or streaming video it was against the rules" now either the rule has changed to encompass even mentioning that you have downloaded something illegally or that was always the rule but no one understood it.
I don't think it's too much to expect the rule to be clarified or at least that the moderators not think they can instantly ban someone for breaking what is an unclear rule. I realise all you mods gotta stand together on this but discuss amongst yourselves what the purpose of the rule is and how to express it in a clear enough manner that everyone understands it.
Finally, no one in this forum has broken this rule so why did it appear here?
Then the question expands to sites like Ustream and Justin.tv, which is really the crux of the issue, because there is a group (that hobbie is a part of) dedicated to watching legally owned movies over these services while discussing them over skype. The major reason for clarification is that hobbie has made it sound like this is a bannable offense now, and when challenged on it he has clammed up and not provided any direction on what is and isn't acceptable.
The YouTube link was taking this to a logical extreme.
As for this, I would like to follow up on what DoNothing said. He mentions that it's less about the actual rule and more about the vague statement overarching it and the spotty at best enforcement. And then on top of this it's also about hobbie's inability to deal with certain segments of the site in a non-antagonistic manner.
So first, the first post of this thread is the vaguest damn thing in the world and could cover anything from mere conversations about torrenting, to someone saying they downloaded something and getting banned because they neglected to mention it was from a legal source. (not to mention that both of these would be nearly unenforceable). Again, when pressed for followups hobbie disappeared and did not clarify his statements.
Second, hobbie specifically targeted one thread regarding this decree, and when called on the fact that he had only specifically targeted this thread with the "new" policy, he then proceeded to reluctantly post the same thing in another thread, and then after getting called on only posting it in two areas again posted this thread.
The reality is that in the end entire fight is about hobbie being a dick. But at the same time, his extreme vagueness in setting up rules leaves open worlds of unfair possibilities.
I've said it before. I initially posted to the group of users with the most known violations. There was a post about someone's rip of Dragon Age needing a key not 10 pages before my clarification.
So this has nothing to do with anyone in the movie forum but is instead directed at a group of people who you have already warned? This is in fact a warning to a group of people in a different forum that are known violators of the rules that has been placed here for reasons no one here understands?
I think it's actually nice that there's a nice big warning posted in a forum where this could easily become an issue (as if it wasn't one already). Instead of mods/admins just popping into threads one day and penalizing people for breaking a rule that, if you chose to interpret it that way, has always been in place. Things haven't always been that friendly when it comes to situations like that (I speak from personal experience). Do I think we need to get a few more specifics? Definitely. But you can hardly act like this is an issue that doesn't apply to the movies forum. I know it applies to the TV forum, which is why when I revised the rules there, I made it a point to address this issue rather heavily and have tried to keep a close eye on it since I started there.
Your myopic view of enforcement on this site is sad, but not unexpected. We can only be so many places at once. When we see something that's a violation of the rules, we deal with it. That doesn't mean the next thread down the list isn't doing the same thing, and none of us have ever visited that thread, so it doesn't get dealt with. Would you 'call' a cop on pulling over you for speeding, but not the guy who you saw speeding yesterday? No. Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your attitude.
Getting back to my point, if you see someone breaking a rule, tell an admin. Again, for someone who's been on the site this long, this isn't rocket science.
While this was primarily a statement against the recent trend of talking about piracy in code terms, it does also impact some other things. One of those is RT Movie Night. I don't care what copyright law you claim to be skirting or how you want to view U Streaming copyrighted material, it's illegal. And maybe you've forgotten, but I'm an attorney who actually does intellectual property work. When the Xbox360 does a similar thing in groups, it's based on a specific license. U Stream is an illegal distribution of copyrighted material when used that way, and it's an illegal act being done by RT members and promoted on the RT site in public. It isn't like it's just RvB movies, and you've got Burnie's permission. So, that will likely have to change. It's not the same a posting a link to a YouTube of copyrighted material that hasn't been pulled.
I am going to defer to you on the legality since I know this is what you do and it appears I was under some mistaken impressions of how some sites ran.
I am also going to apologize for calling hobbie a dick, since my anger with him is over an issue that is largely separate from this one. But that anger was fueling some of my posts the other day, to the point of near incoherence, so I apologize for that too.
I still disagree with certain aspects of what you guys are talking about, and I really do think that it is going to be a nearly unenforceable rule based on what I've seen.
Thank you for your clarifications, this is my last post here since known trolls such as Hohenheim are trying to disrupt the discussion.
