Quantcast

«

»

Nov 18 2013

All about YouTube channels

Many of you have been asking about a dispute that has arisen between The Atheist Experience crew and a YouTube channel owner named Steve Mills. I’d like to take a moment to clear up what happened and why the contention came up.

First, just to get this out of the way: Yes, I did send Steve a letter, under the official Atheist Experience channel account, asking him to stop reposting entire episodes of the show. This was after multiple attempts to get in touch with him in a much friendlier context, and after he’d closed off various methods of communication, and Jen Peeples (one of our cohosts, and the current president of the Atheist Community of Austin) had received some ugly messages when she tried to post the requests in his comments sections. In short, I brought up a copyright violation, only after other means of getting in touch had clearly failed.

(Continued…)

After I sent my message to Steve, he retaliated by posting a video with the text of my message, some angry captions overlaid on top, and some sinister music playing over it. Here is a link to the video; I have no desire to cover it up. I’m just writing this to explain the motivation.

Time for some boring legalese. Episodes of The Atheist Experience are currently released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0, which stipulates that other people may make duplicates of our videos, but there are certain restrictions, namely:

  • “You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform.”
  • “keep intact… to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work”
  • “You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You… in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation”

This is complicated a little bit by the fact that when we selected this particular license, YouTube did not allow long clips to be posted. It was limited to ten minutes per clip. At the time, this meant that anybody could put up short clips of The Atheist Experience, which was enough time to include most individual calls in their entirety. We’ve always encouraged fans to post their favorite bits from the show; in fact in many cases we have highlighted these clips on the official Atheist Experience page.

We’re a bit more dubious about the practice of posting entire episodes, especially people who post every episode, every week. Since this was not possible in a practical way previously, we are currently discussing whether we need to select a different licensing arrangement for future episodes. Regardless, the fact remains that Steve’s videos were in violation because (1) he didn’t use the Creative Commons License, and (2) he didn’t link back to us.

Here are a few reasons why we’re currently not entirely comfortable with people reproducing full episodes every week:

  1. It gives the false impression that a particular channel is officially associated with The Atheist Experience. Even when the channels explicitly say “this is a fan channel,” sometimes we receive email at the show’s address ([email protected]) demanding to know why a particular channel operator blocked a user. While we don’t have a problem with blocking users on our own sites, we already have enough feedback to deal with, without being held responsible for the actions of various strangers.
  2. This kind of distribution makes it harder to provide clarification on episode content. For example, you may remember the Foolish Atheists episode, in which Patrick Greene, after trying to sue Ray Comfort over a bumper sticker, gave out his email address on the air and asked people to tell him if they agreed. We STILL get email directed at Patrick, even though it happened five years ago and we’ve tried to tag every video copy we can with a note that people should not email him anymore.
  3. It dilutes the audience, making monetization a bigger challenge. This is actually not a huge issue for us. However, the ACA is a non-profit organization, which is run entirely by volunteers and survives primarily through donations. Maintaining control of our own channels is one of many financial concerns that helps keep the organization going, although the income from video clicks is still pretty small. No member individually profits from the YouTube channel; all funds received go into the organization’s general fund, which we use to pay producer and training fees, buy equipment for shows done out of the studio, maintain a library and studio which may be used in a more prominent way in the future, and put on social events that our fans frequently attend.

I’ve had numerous discussions with various board and crew members over the weekend about the reproduction of Atheist Experience shows. While we recognize that Steve could, in principle, come back in compliance with the terms of the CC license and continue hosting copies of our videos, we would like to think that a fan who runs a channel entirely based on the content that we produced, would have the courtesy to listen to our concerns and respect our preferences. This hasn’t been the case. Steve has set up a filter which apparently blocked out Jen Peeples and made it nearly impossible for her to reach him, and various earlier attempts at outreach have been ignored. This is unfriendly behavior from someone who is allegedly trying to “promote” us.

In closing, I’d like to address a few other complaints we’ve heard from well meaning individuals who have written us to express their hostility to the way I handled this dialogue.

1. Steve Mills is the channel I always use to watch new episodes. Without him, you would lose viewers.

We post our new episodes in numerous formats. Viewers can always watch the show live on Ustream, or alternatively through Channel Austin’s own live feed. New episodes are saved automatically to our Ustream channel, and then they are generally uploaded very quickly to Blip.tv. We announce the existence of these channels every week. You can get this information by visiting the archive page, and you can also download the shows as audio reproductions or via podcast. It is really not hard to get hold of new episodes.

2. I hate Ustream and Blip, I only want to watch on YouTube, but you don’t keep your own YouTube channel up to date.

I’m not terribly keen on the idea that no format but YouTube is acceptable for providing current episodes. Steve has clearly been taking his own reproductions from the channels I mentioned above; they are the same thing. Having said that, I’m aware that the official Atheist Experience YouTube channel hasn’t been well maintained in recent times. This is partly my own fault. A few months ago I recognized that no one had been maintaining it actively for a long time. I got the YouTube login credentials and started trying to update the latest shows, but couldn’t find the time to keep up with the process.

Luckily, Martin Wagner has stepped up and taken over the channel. As of today, you’ll find that all the latest episodes have been posted, including the one from yesterday. It is still the case that this is an all-volunteer effort by people who lead their own lives, so I hope fans will be understanding if the YouTube channel doesn’t remain perfectly current. However, Martin has, for now, stated that he has every intention of posting new episodes to YouTube as soon as possible.

3. Comments on your channel are disabled. This is censorship, and I only want to watch The Atheist Experience in a venue that is unmoderated.

YouTube comments are indeed disabled in our channel. However, each video has a prominent link to the associated open thread that appears on this blog. In the past we’ve tried opening up the channel to comments, but we found that a very high number of episodes wound up being flooded with a combination of spam, long winded apologists, and various obscene or misogynistic comments directed at various hosts by people with an axe to grind. This seems to be the nature of YouTube comment sections, in my experience.

I don’t read YouTube comments very often myself, but Martin would also like to add the following: “In the last two weeks, Google, the owners of YouTube, integrated Google Plus with YT comments, with the result that comments on high-traffic channels went from annoying at worst to an absolute, Kafka-esque nightmare of insanity. With no restrictions at all, people would post entire novels and screenplays, obscene ASCII art, and live links to viruses. Most of the biggest channels, including PewDiePie, disabled comments entirely until Google fixed the problem, which I understand they are now doing. But whatever the case, moderating comments on YouTube to avoid such lunacy was always a fool’s errand, and is now even worse, and we’re much happier offering open thread on both our blog and our FB page.”

We do moderate the blog, the same way that we moderate chat during the show, as well as comments on our Facebook group. For comment sections that are “officially” associated with our show (and, to a much lesser extent, channels that may give the unintended appearance of being official), we prefer not to play host to straight up ad hominem attacks and bigotry. As a general policy we do not block commenters simply on the basis of disagreement with our point of view. However, we do prefer discussion environments that don’t actively chase off more reasonable contributors.

I’m aware that some people disagree with that policy, and prefer to have a “warts and all” conversation about the show. To those people, I recommend you find or create a message board that you’d like to use to discuss the show. It doesn’t have to be tied to a video. Linking is not that hard to do.

 

Thanks for your understanding in this matter. We appreciate our fans, we’re sorry to have caused confusion and resentment, and I hope you’ll understand where the organization is coming from.

263 comments

2 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Dan Palka

    My main situation with Blip and Ustream is purely technological. They often just don’t work right or go very slowly, or don’t work across all devices and all connections reliably. YouTube is the king of online video for a reason: fast, predictable and reliable video streaming.

    I don’t know or care about Steve Mills but please please please keep your YouTube channel updated. It should be your primary platform IMHO.

  2. 2
    plasmaborne4rel

    An excellent reasonable explanation. I’ve watched every episode of the Atheist Experience and have never watched the episodes on YouTube. I also listen regularly to Non-Prophets and Godless Bitches. The ACA wanting to ensure it’s broadcasts are presented in an approved manner seems outright normal. Wanting to take someone else’s videos and make your own channel out of them seems harsh and rude. Why doesn’t Steve post his own YouTube videos inspired by The Atheist Experience and other atheist media?

    1. 2.1
      Justin

      “Wanting to take someone else’s videos and make your own channel out of them seems harsh and rude. Why doesn’t Steve post his own YouTube videos inspired by The Atheist Experience and other atheist media?”

      He didn’t want to “take” TAE videos and make his own channel out of them. He wanted to relay the message that TAE was spreading to a wider audience. Does that seem harsh and rude? TAE has tried to (successfully it seems) make Mr. Mills look like a complete douche when all he was doing was spreading the word of TAE through a medium that TAE had neglected for some time. He complied with all of their requests and it seems that wasn’t good enough.

      1. John Iacoletti

        “He didn’t want to “take” TAE videos and make his own channel out of them”

        What do you mean? That is EXACTLY what he did!

        1. Justin

          You’re implying that he had a hidden agenda like making money or getting fame out of posting those videos. He didn’t…

          1. Jack Ellis

            Is that you Steve? Or is there a psychic in our midsts?

          2. Justin

            No need to be psychic when Mr. Mills has stated this himself.

      2. Tasarran

        He can do it, if he follows the law.
        It’s not hard to do, they mentioned the three steps he needs to do, and all they involve is adding some text to the description.
        So they ask him to start doing this, and he blocks them.
        See you in court, dumbass.

  3. 3
    DrMcCoy

    Please don’t just say “released under Creative Commons license 3.0″. Specficy /which/ CC variant you mean, namely CC by-nc-sa in your case. There is not just one CC license, there’s several.

    (Also, the NC clause makes this one a non-free-culture license, which I for one am morally relatively opposed to, but that’s tangential)

    Without knowing (or caring) anything about Steve Mills or your dispute, let me add my 2 cents regarding the CC license:
    Forbidding any reposting is completely against the spirit of the CC licenses, which is about a free/libre culture of artistic expression. Of course, proper attribution and license information has to be kept; but controlling and restricting the distribution channels is completely out of line.

    1. 3.1
      Russell Glasser

      I fixed the CC reference above. Thinking about license language is new to me, so thanks for your input in helping me understand the context.

      As for your second comment: Yes, this is why we are thinking about changing the license. If you have any input or recommendation on this matter, I’m sure it would be useful material for the next board meeting.

      1. Russell Glasser

        If necessary, this may result in allowing full reproductions of past episodes to remain in place, while putting tighter controls on licenses in the future.

      2. DrMcCoy

        Well, I’m not a lawyer.
        I’m just a coder within the free/libre open source software community and a free software / free culture proponent. As such, I have neither the expertise nor the willingness to, in good conscience, councel you about choosing a license that restricts redistribution (one of the essential freedoms).

        Yeah, I know, I’m quite a stickler for that.

      3. EnlightenmentLiberal

        Do you wish to restrict solely commercial reproduction, aka reproduction done in such a way as to gain money from the work? If so, DrMcCoy and I would be greatly more sympathetic.

        Also, thanks again for clearing this all up. It’s very much appreciated.

  4. 4
    forfaden

    I loved his channel because (well it was actually maintained) and the short videos by caller made it easier to digest. With hour long videos uploaded it is difficult to be able to consume in smaller amounts. I hope somehow this can be changed or helped

    1. 4.1
      What

      Agreed…split videos by caller please

  5. 5
    Mark Massingill

    I watched Steve’s video response and read some of the obscene comment his followers posted about Jen. I personally wouldn’t blame you if you went through youtube and had all of your content removed from his channel. The proper thing for him to have done would be exactly that, removing all content he’d posted without permission as soon as he was asked to stop posting it in violation of your license. His whining about it shows a complete lack of character. Judging by his followers comments many share this lack of character and losing such viewers wouldn’t be a bad thing at all and may be preferable. I greatly enjoy the show and am really appreciative of the efforts you guys put forth in producing it. I think you are doing a tremendous job. I think it’s a great platform and hope other Atheist groups benefit from it. It’s great to see it gaining popularity and hopefully opening minds to critical thinking and questioning beliefs if not out and out creating more Atheists. Keep up the great work and know that there are most likely very few who would agree with Steve Mills and his use of your content in violation of the very fair and open license you offer.

    Thanks,
    Mark Massingill

    1. 5.1
      Justin

      You’ve missed the point of Mr. Mills defenders completely.

      1. Jack Ellis

        Irrelevant, since they’ve no ground to stand on.

        1. Justin

          Irrelevant regarding what?

        2. Anti Kultist

          No ground to stand on? What on earth are you talking about? The guy forwarded episodes to a medium that a lot of people prefer over the official channels the ACA uses and a lot of people appreciated this effort because the Atheist Experience channel on Youtube was basically never updated. That’s all there is to it. If Martin is going to update more often, then that resolves a lot of the issues and the need for Steve’s effort will largely be gone. Frankly, I think the ACA has dealt with this in a horrible manner as there was absolutely no reason to think that guy was making money off it or anything else.

          The only issue is the lack of comment ability. Unfortunately, the lack of this means that I will not be engaging with Atheist Experience videos in the future, because I want as little to do with FreeThoughtBlogs as possible and don’t want to help direct traffic to this hub or help fund it with regular page views, not even though TAE’s pages.

          Have fun guys.

          1. Raging Bee

            The only issue is the lack of comment ability.

            Why is that an issue? If AXP has good content, you can benefit from it without having to read or write any comments. Just like I can learn stuff from watching Al Jazeera without having to comment on every news item.

            Unfortunately, the lack of this means that I will not be engaging with Atheist Experience videos in the future, because I want as little to do with FreeThoughtBlogs as possible…

            So watch AXP directly and don’t bother commenting on FtB. What could be simpler?

          2. mike

            @Anti Kultist

            Good! Who wants to read your stupid comments anyway?!

  6. 6
    John Iacoletti

    I think Steve and his fans are forgetting whose show this is, and I’m annoyed at this seeming sense of entitlement to basically pirate someone else’s intellectual property to one’s own channel, and thus associate his name with our show without even asking. It was never our intention with our licensing to have full shows just lifted whole cloth and copied to another channel (and yes, breaking up a full show into several individual videos is still posting a full episode). Posting short clips is fine, especially if there is some value add, like your own commentary, or adding captions. Our shows have always been available within a day or two on atheist-experience.com. Also, this is not a huge deal, but I don’t really like our shows associated with a channel called “experience-the-jesus”.

    1. 6.1
      Justin

      I don’t think Mr. Mills or fans of the show viewed through Mr. Mills channel (cause lets be honest here they aren’t Mr. Mills fans they are his supporters in this altercation) are forgetting who’s show it is.

      “…and I’m annoyed at this seeming sense of entitlement to basically pirate someone else’s intellectual property to one’s own channel, and thus associate his name with our show without even asking.”

      Now it’s basically pirating intellectual property? TAE GAVE PERMISSION TO MAKE CLIPS OF THE SHOW! This has been said repeatedly by TAE….! OMFG!

      “It was never our intention with our licensing to have full shows just lifted whole cloth and copied to another channel (and yes, breaking up a full show into several individual videos is still posting a full episode).”

      It doesn’t matter what your intention was. It’s what people were allowed to do with your content. It doesn’t matter that if you put all the clips together they make a full episode. THEY WERE CLIPS!

      “Posting short clips is fine, especially if there is some value add, like your own commentary, or adding captions.”

      Posting short clips is fine…. That’s all you need to say unless you want to add EXCEPT blah blah blah. Saying “especially if….” doesn’t restrict anything.

      1. Monocle Smile

        “Clips” and “full episodes without the proper licensing measures” are two very different things. Maybe not in your world, but tough shit.

        Yes, it DOES matter what the intent was, and it of course matters that when you segment the show and post it as a single playlist it’s a full episode. You’re just determined to reject all legal-type stuff involved here because dishonesty is your policy. You don’t get to fabricate a loophole because you’re butthurt about nothing.

        1. Justin

          You have to be the dumbest person on the internet.

          All that matters is what people were allowed to do with the videos. Intent has NOTHING to do with this conversation.

          Example: If TAE’s “intent” was to not have any of their shows on YouTube yet they didn’t put that clause in their CC license or in some other way to inform people that they COULD NOT post their shows on YouTube then guess what… intent doesn’t mean shit if they are legally allowed to put that show on YouTube! Oh my fucking logic and reason how is that hard to comprehend?

          I still have yet to see the CC license violations that Mr. Mills is being accused of! All I see them saying is he didn’t use the CC license not that he violated it. Unless not using is a violation and then I’d ask for evidence of this lack of use. The quote from Mr. Glasser, “Regardless, the fact remains that Steve’s videos were in violation because (1) he didn’t use the Creative Commons License, and (2) he didn’t link back to us.”

          Please quote me rejecting all the “legal-type stuff” involved here….

          1. Monocle Smile

            Not using the URI IS A VIOLATION as stated IN THE ORIGINAL POST, you fucktard.

            Steve Mills wasn’t putting the URI in the video description, probably because it wasn’t given to him. That’s the whole point of this CC license. How dense can you be? Did you even read this post, or did you jump straight to bitching?

            Evidence that Mills didn’t use the URI? How about the fact that if he did, it was given to him by TAE and this whole thing would never have happened? Or are you just going to make shit up yet again? Or how about the fact that he took down all of the videos instead of pointing to the URI citation because that would authorize his use? You MUST be related to Steve Mills in some way. Or you’re just a habitual asshole.

          2. Justin

            “You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform.”

            This reads to me that you can either include a copy of the CC License or the URI… And there are witnesses that have verified on this thread that he in fact was using the CC License…

            Still waiting on the quote from me rejecting all the “legal-type” stuff… would also like you to quote me making shit up…

  7. 7
    CodeMonkeySteve

    > New episodes are saved automatically to our Ustream channel,

    Error 404 – Page Not Found

    > and then they are generally uploaded very quickly to Blip.tv.

    (Video player is unusably broken)

    > the official Atheist Experience YouTube channel

    Error 500 – Internal Server Error

    > a YouTube channel owner named Steve Mills

    “I’ll no longer be posting their videos”

    I guess if I want to watch the show I’ll need to drop by the studio. Someone save me a seat?

    1. 7.1
      Jasper of Maine

      > New episodes are saved automatically to our Ustream channel,

      Error 404 – Page Not Found

      Incorrect: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/the-atheist-experience

      and then they are generally uploaded very quickly to Blip.tv.

      (Video player is unusably broken)

      In what way? Because it doesn’t operate 100% to your satisfaction?

      Seems to be operating fine, and usable, to me: http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/episode-6691941

      the official Atheist Experience YouTube channel

      Error 500 – Internal Server Error

      What….? http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtheistExperience

      > a YouTube channel owner named Steve Mills

      “I’ll no longer be posting their videos

      Yes, and now it’ll be regularly updated.

      You don’t have to engage it Bald-Faced Lies to make a point.

      1. unfogged
        the official Atheist Experience YouTube channel
        Error 500 – Internal Server Error

        What….? http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtheistExperience

        I was getting that for a while earlier today on any youtube page so it wasn’t just AETV. It is working now.

      2. Andrew Klein

        Jasper of Maine…

        I must say sir, what a jerk. For all you know, the guy has major compatibility issues that he might not realize, or, the website was down when he checked it. Plenty of websites with video and other media links fall flat on their face and fail. Your approach is not only condescending, but also a poor example of the intelligence and humanist morals that our movement aspires too.

        Please, apologize, and stop. Your rudeness was completely uncalled for.

        Andy

        1. Monocle Smile

          Are you CodeMonkey’s mother? The comment full of criticism was rather bitchy in the way it was presented. So it deserved to be treated no better.

          Also, temperament has exactly nothing to do with intelligence. This is borderline tone trolling.

          1. Tawn

            I found neither of the posts offensive. Can we all stop being so sensitive? We all hate it when the religious get offended at criticisms of their faith (a central part of their lives) and yet we start making accusations of being jerks or trolls regarding criticisms of relatively trivial matters.

    2. 7.2
      Russell Glasser

      > > New episodes are saved automatically to our Ustream channel,
      > Error 404 – Page Not Found

      <—- Yes, that link was broken in the post, I just fixed it. Thank you for the heads up.

    3. 7.3
      Vall

      It’s kind of funny that a person who chose CodeMonkey as a name got their ass kicked by a computer. I imagine your day job is to demonstrate competitor’s products on infomercials.
      The archive page that Russell linked in the OP has always worked for me, if i miss a live stream.

      1. tosspotovich

        Delicious irony, mmm.

    4. 7.4
      Jack Ellis

      How can you complain about an error on youtube, and then turn around and com pain about it not being on a certain youtube channel? If youtube isn’t working, what’s the difference?

  8. 8
    Aaroninmelbourne

    I haven’t had any trouble with the Ustream recordings of late so now prefer to watch through there… I’m assuming the ads I sit through have a revenue stream back to the ACA? Personally I’ve gone off YouTube anyway since the Google Plus takeover. Such a shame, YouTube was like a really seedy roadside inn on the wrong side of the tracks… which has since been crashed by a bunch of airheads who really thought they were invited to a party there, from their favorite manufactored singing One Direction automaton.

    1. 8.1
      John Iacoletti

      No, we get none of the revenue from ustream. We do get some modest revenue from blip.

    2. 8.2
      John Iacoletti

      Also, the video/audio quality of the ustream recordings is the worst of all of the options. But only ustream has the after-show.

  9. 9
    Scott

    If you aren’t paying for a product, your entitlement to bitch about the quality or unfairness of the terms is like god, meaning non-existent. Someone above cited the spirit of open and free culture and I mostly agree. But open and free culture doesn’t mean “I’m entitled to free shit that someone else labors to create but I don’t lift a finger to support through equal labor or monetary compensation”. That’s just being a leech. If you like the work the team at The Atheist Experience and the ACA are doing and you believe it is valuable for society, make a donation or regular donations. If you can’t afford to donate money, donate time (by say, volunteering to help manage the YouTube channel or other time-consuming admin tasks). Just leeching the content and making demands about how they ought to structure their licensing isn’t supporting the show or their work. I would contend that this is the biggest problem with the open source movement in general. It’s a nice concept, but in reality the majority of participants consume the free stuff but don’t give back in any way – unless you count complaining as contributing.

    1. 9.1
      Monocle Smile

      Completely agree with everything here. This is part of why I have issues with the “free culture” movement as a whole…it seeks to bankrupt pretty much every artist of every kind to feed the crowd of leeches. Because let’s face it…the vast majority of those who partake in enjoying art are not artists and don’t contribute to the collective.

    2. 9.2
      J M

      “If you aren’t paying for a product, your entitlement to bitch about the quality or unfairness of the terms…”

      Do you really think that money is the only form of value the show’s hosts want? Would they do the show if no one watched? Unlikely, and this shows that viewership is valued. As a result things that are beneficial to viewership are in some way motivations for those that do the show.

      To say that people should not state their position regarding problems or unfairness is to stifle self-correction.

      “…making demands about how they ought to structure their licensing isn’t supporting the show or their work.”

      Sure it is. That’s usually the point of criticism put forth with the intent to be constructive.

      “…in reality the majority of participants consume the free stuff but don’t give back in any way – unless you count complaining as contributing.”

      It really is self-serving of you to characterize criticism as “complaining” or “bitching” like that. Avoid the connotations and say it plainly. You don’t think a viewer pointing out any problems benefits the show. But you hardly have a cut and dry case. I would say that most circumstances, be them small social groups or overarching systems, when they find a way to avoid all conflicting positions(like discrediting them preemptively), even more problems follow. As long as someone has a way to communicate, they can potentially put forth valid, beneficial and contributing criticism.

      1. Monocle Smile

        Can criticism be beneficial? Of course.

        Are you entitled to have your criticism heard and have changes made in accordance? Hell no.

        1. J M

          The motivation of stating a criticism is often to have it heard, with the hope that actions are taken to correct. But don’t assume that involves a preemption that they must(entitled) be acted upon. Avoid assuming intentions so broadly. Someone making a critical statement doesn’t mean they believe their statement is absolutely correct, let alone that it must be acted upon regardless.

          1. mary2

            People read intentions from tone JM. This is necessarily open to error. If every person on this site who has commented on the intentions behind some of the criticism has got it wrong, the writers of criticism may need to think about the tone in which they write. Cue accusations of ‘tone trolling’ in 3, 2. . .

          2. J M

            @mary2: Well given the comments in Russell’s post are paraphrases. The tone he put forth isn’t in any way an accurate indicator of original commenter’s intentions. Interpreting purely based on the tone of a paraphrase leaves you very susceptible to self-serving biases, or the biases of the one paraphrasing.

      2. Scott

        With all due respect, I stated not once, but twice that “compensation” could be in monetary form, equal labor (i.e., volunteerism), or volunteering to help with admin and production tasks. I think I stated my meaning directly and clearly. I stated perfectly clearly that “simply complaining” was not contributing. I never discouraged constructive criticism with the aim of improving the show. You simply failed to comprehend what I wrote.

        1. J M

          I’ll quote my previous comment “As long as someone has a way to communicate, they can potentially put forth valid, beneficial and contributing criticism.” It’s not a matter of me not understanding your comment, but rather I’m pointing out a distinction that you’re neglecting or avoiding. Complaining can be contributing, depending on the motivation. You’re not analyzing your assumption that their motivations are otherwise.

          1. Raging Bee

            I’ll quote my previous comment “As long as someone has a way to communicate, they can potentially put forth valid, beneficial and contributing criticism.”

            Yeah, they can, but that doesn’t mean they do.

      3. Scott

        Allow me to add further clarification since the intended subject of my original comments was unclear. In the post, Russell makes reference to several comments/criticisms they have received that specifically make mention of the inconsistency of updates on the YouTube channel, Steve’s violation of the license and DrMcCoy’s declining to offer advice on the license on grounds of conscience, and a few others. I was not responding to any one comment or person but to the general notion that (a) anyone is entitled to anything for free and on their terms (most things in life require some compromise, and (b) the widespread tendency of consumers of “free culture” to complain but not contribute. Offering constructive feedback is fantastic but if you are benefiting from free content but decline to get involved in any material way (again, not necessarily money but also time and effort) then you have limited entitlement to complain. Everyone likes the “free” part of the the open movement but a very tiny percentage bother with the contribution half that goes along with that.

        I hope that clears up my intent. I am a big proponent of open source and creative commons and have been involved in open projects for 12-13 years. This is the first time I’ve ever made a comment of this nature and it was intended to enlighten not belittle (though apparently fell short).

        1. J M

          “Russell makes reference to several comments/criticisms they have received that specifically make mention of the inconsistency of updates on…”

          You’re characterizing said comments as “bitching” and/or not being put forth with constructive intent. Can you really justify doing so? If so, how are you establishing the intent of so many?

          “(a) anyone is entitled to anything for free and on their terms (most things in life require some compromise”

          The result of that reasoning would be the preemptive rejection of criticism about anything that was put forth where consumption has no obvious cost. I don’t see anyone claiming a requirement to meet their personal terms. Someone putting forth their position pointing to conflict with previous statements about licenses, etc, isn’t making their own terms. And it doesn’t imply that they have no desire for compromise.

          “and (b) the widespread tendency of consumers of “free culture” to complain but not contribute.”

          Again you’re attempting to characterize all forms of complaint as not contributing.

          “Offering constructive feedback is fantastic but if you are benefiting from free content but decline to get involved in any material way…”

          So unless you can get a job at a news station(when it provides its content free) you would have no right to comment?

          “Everyone likes the “free” part of the the open movement but a very tiny percentage bother with the contribution half that goes along with that.”

          Well you’d have to explain said “free movement”. There is no absolute lack of restrictions on an action(“free”). It’s purely conceptual and an ideal. The concept “free” is actually applied to reference a gradient of degrees of restrictions. Indirectly an individual’s ability to view an episode of the show is potentially restricted by the hosts, and everyone involved in recording and distributing it. But after recording, the fact that data can be copied at little cost, and distributed through video services that do not charge, doesn’t devalue a criticism to inconsiderately demanding free content. It is absurd to preemptively characterize and discredit the statements of viewers who use such “free” services.

          Steve’s channel provided promptly uploaded episodes, split up by caller. Resulting in more focused discussions. Steve’s channel was finding more discussion on a call by call basis than any other place on the net. For example the FT blog discussion of episode 839 is 220 comments right now, while Steve’s uploads had about 400 before they were removed.

          1. Jack Ellis

            Quit putting words in someone’s mouth.

            Quit complaining. If you think these posts you’re making are constructive, you’re wrong.

            There’s my “constructive criticism” for you.

            At the end of the day, the episodes belong to TAE and if they want to put them in a vault and watch them together while sipping champagne in a hot tub and laughing at the rest of us who aren’t allowed in, they can do that.

            They don’t. They are glad to share on their rational acceptable terms. Accept them and shut up. Or just shut up.

          2. jacobfromlost

            What Jack said.

          3. J M

            @Jack Ellis:

            “Quit complaining. If you think these posts you’re making are constructive, you’re wrong.”

            I’d be happy to hear your case in support of that.

            When someone points out a problem that may be irrelevant to you, that doesn’t make it non-constructive, or lacking in constructive intent.

            “At the end of the day, the episodes belong to TAE and if they want to put them in a vault…”

            And if they didn’t have any value for viewership of the program, then I wouldn’t be here. But in this case we have a group that is open to discussion and motivated by the value that others find in the show.

            “Accept them and shut up. Or just shut up.”

            It’s sad to see how willing you are to accept a line of reasoning that would utterly stifle introspection and critique.

    3. 9.3
      mary2

      Scott, Hear hear!!!

      JM, Read some of the criticism above. This is not friends making helpful suggestions; this is 2 year olds throwing tantrums: ‘I want and you should provide it for me exactly how I want it or you’re being mean.’

      These people are volunteers who give up their free time, for no recompense, to do something that we viewers (presumably) find valuable. They don’t owe us because we bother to listen.

      1. J M

        “This is not friends making helpful suggestions”

        Who exactly mary2?

        I don’t see Scott’s comment being directed as a reply to anyone but Russell’s reference to Steve. Along with Scott’s general and self-serving language about people thinking they are “entitled to free shit” based on them perceiving a problem and pointing it out.

        “…this is 2 year olds throwing tantrums: ‘I want and you should provide it for me exactly how I want it or you’re being mean.’”

        Please, quit with the characterizations. People are commenting on how a show is provided, something that all forms of media directly depend upon. And you, like Scott are trying to discredit many such comments in such absurd ways. Ok, you don’t have the same value for open comment sections demarcated by call, uploaded promptly, on Youtube. But have a little objectivity in your analyses and maybe you’ll find a way to recognize why those who appreciated Steve’s channel for such reasons are unhappy with this.

        People put forth their positions with a wide range of expectations for response, rarely stated explicitly. How are you distinguishing between strongly stated positions regarding a problem put forth tentatively, and your character of a 2 year old tantrum with unbounded expectations. How are you categorizing a commenter’s expectations in order to justify your statement?

        1. Monocle Smile

          That Steve Mills’ channel clearly involved copyright violations should be obvious to anyone who’s spent any time on YouTube or dealing with media in general.

          This overrides anyone’s perceived entitlement to convenience. End of story.

          Acting as if the only criticism is constructive and involves the format of Steve Mills’ channel is dishonest. The vast majority of potshots taken are ignorant and irrelevant.

          How much time have you spent perusing this blog? This isn’t a new issue. People have been bitching endlessly about how “inconvenient” it is to view the show for years and literally demanding that the show cave to their preferences or lose their viewership. Those people can take their illusory self-importance and shove it.

          1. J M

            “That Steve Mills’ channel clearly involved copyright violations should be obvious to anyone”

            Given previous statements about licenses, not so. But regardless, is copyright really the only motivation for TAE to shutdown the most popular discussions about the show? If so, why should it be? Steve’s uploads only benefited the show’s stated interest. To honestly discuss people’s beliefs.

            “Acting as if the only criticism is constructive…”

            Well you can read right here what I was responding to. “This is not friends making helpful suggestions.” Countering that statement doesn’t involve claiming that all potential criticisms are constructive. However many in this forum, the Facebook thread, YT comments, and statements paraphrased by Russell here are constructive.

            “The vast majority of potshots taken are ignorant and irrelevant.”

            Within what sample group? You’re again characterizing with the term “potshot.” You’re preemptively assuming that they have no intention(aim). It’s easy to call a criticism ignorant when one is unaware of the values and intentions of the criticism.

            “People have been bitching endlessly about how “inconvenient” it is to view the show…”

            A large number of times that a complaint has been put forth doesn’t imply that there’s is no benefit in taking action upon it now. And no, this blog only contains a fragment of viewers of the show.

            “and literally demanding that the show cave to their preferences or lose their viewership.”

            An open discussion on highly popular Youtube was being fulfilled by Steve at no cost to TAE. Steve fulfilled a niche that was benefiting many, it’s no surprise that this inconsiderate action to shut him down would be met with anger. But that anger doesn’t justify your characterization of “the vast majority” being ignorant and irrelevant.

        2. Scott

          Twice you have accused me of being self-serving. How, exactly, do you imagine this serves me in the least? I was joining in an open discussion on comment thread open to the public. There was no intended vitriol or malice in my comments. I was simply adding my $0.02 worth, which you are welcome to take with a grain of salt.

          1. J M

            “How, exactly, do you imagine this serves me in the least?”

            I was referring to the cognitive bias towards self-service. That is, that you’re overvaluing factors that are part of your state of mind, and undervaluing the potential for other factors or the values of others.

            “…your entitlement to bitch about the quality or unfairness of the terms…”
            “…the majority of participants consume the free stuff but don’t give back in any way – unless you count complaining as contributing.”

            My intention was to point to your and mary’s lack of consideration for others, and in turn the characterizations that you both put forth. If you disagree with someone it’s easy to self-serve one’s own opinion and characterize others as simply “bitching”, “complaining” or having a “tantrum.” Easy? Yes. Considerate and rational? In this case, no.

          2. Scott

            You’ve probably posted more total words than any other commentor. Seems perhaps I’m not the only one being self-serving. You make some valid points, which I can appreciate and it gives me some things to consider, but I think to some extent you are being intentionally obtuse with regards to my comments about complaints. Given the context it seems pretty clear to me that I am referring to a specific kind of complaint and not all complaints. You are, to some extent, imposing your own cognitive bias on my statements, are you not?

        3. Jack Ellis

          You come off like the guy from the recent Sci Am scandal who got all kurfuffled when a writer didn’t want to write for him for free because they were getting “exposure” instead of money.

          It just ain’t that simple pal.

          1. Monocle Smile

            Yeah, you can’t eat “exposure.” I was a musician part time in college; I was immediately persuaded to make a profession of engineering and keep music a hobby instead. This is why the “free culture” movement can largely suck it.

  10. 10
    Tyson Colley

    Glad to have Martin. He seems to sincerely appreciate and care for the fans.

    About Blip and Ustream…. I spend the majority of my day either in a desk at school (or at home doing homework) or working my ass off in a factory. When I want to relax I want nothing more than to sit on my couch. My xbox 360 (as well as most other media devices) has has a youtube app in which I can sit on my couch for an hour and enjoy TAE comfortably. Until Blip/Ustream had that function I probably will never use it. Who wants to sit for an hour hunched over a computer when youtube is readily available on every major device? On top of that, youtube is reliable, I already visit youtube daily to watch my other shows. It is convenient. Because of The Young Turks and a few other shows I check youtube daily. Now since Martin is going to upload weekly I will have another reason to check youtube. I just hope you guys keep it up.

    Also, the way Jen handles the fans is completely unacceptable in my opinion. Martin ,on the other, hand is going to make a great administration due to the respectful way he addresses concerns and criticisms.

  11. 11
    Henry Wood

    If these youtube issues aren’t sorted out soon I am going to turn to Jesus! Blip sucks. Please just maintain the YT channel. Without YT I would probably never have heard of you guys. I will resort to prayer…don’t think I won’t do it!

  12. 12
    Justin

    “Yes, I did send Steve a letter, under the official Atheist Experience channel account, asking him to stop reposting entire episodes of the show.”

    Which he did. Evidence for that is the time line in which he went from posting the entire show in one video to when he started posting videos of individual callers.

    “This was after multiple attempts to get in touch with him in a much friendlier context, and after he’d closed off various methods of communication, and Jen Peeples (one of our cohosts, and the current president of the Atheist Community of Austin) had received some ugly messages when she tried to post the requests in his comments sections.”

    Completely irrelevant. You don’t know the circumstances in which Mr. Mills started blocking messages or filtering messages. I have personally tried to communicate to Mr. Mills through YouTube and my message wouldn’t go through even though he sent me a message first and I was trying to reply to it.

    The fact that Jen Peeples got lamb basted in a comments section has what to do with Mr. Mills? First I would think that she had tougher skin after being a host on the show for how many years and being the president of ACA. But as I asked before, what do the comments of viewers of a persons channel have to do with the channel owner in this instance?

    “In short, I brought up a copyright violation, only after other means of getting in touch had clearly failed.
    (Continued…)
    After I sent my message to Steve, he retaliated by posting a video with the text of my message, some angry captions overlaid on top, and some sinister music playing over it.”

    Talk about being dishonest in a conversation. He retaliated? Really Mr. Glasser? More likely he was showing his viewers why he would no longer be posting videos of TAE.

    Angry captions? First, there was one caption and it read – “Just to clarify, I HAVE NOT been repeatedly asked by TAE to remove their videos. They asked me once in May of this year to stop posting full episodes and I complied.” How in any universe is that “angry”?

    Sinister music? I’m pretty sure I’ve heard that same music in a documentary about the universe and even if I haven’t it still seems pretty serene to me. I’m guessing this is another attempt on your part to make Mr. Mills seem like a douche.

    I completely understand why you would want people to post videos per your guidelines but what I don’t understand is this attack on Mr. Mills character or the blatant disrespect of his person nor the dishonesty which I’ve pointed out in this very thread. I am a huge fan of the show and without it I wouldn’t know about people like Hitch, Harris, Dillahunty, Dawkins, Wagner, Tracy, Silverman, or a lot of other people. But just because I am a fan doesn’t mean I’ll stand idley by and watch you attack someone that doesn’t deserve anything but your respect.

    Sincerely,

    Justin Zumwalt

    1. 12.1
      Monocle Smile

      So all I have to do is violate copyright and the producer is then obligated to worship the ground I spit on?

      Excuse me while I rip off about a billion musicians.

      1. Justin

        It’s not that this post deserves a response, it’s that I like to show stupid people how fucking stupid they are.

        You posted a reply on a thread that is moderated by a group that holds logic and reason in a high regard. Your post, like so many religious posts before it, takes an extreme, twisted and very simplistic view on the subject at hand and then you top it off with an equivocation fallacy. Is your reply any indication of what actually happened? Where do you expect to get with this reply?

        Your response reminds me so much of how creationist look at evolution and the ridiculous comments they make about it.

        Good day.

        1. Monocle Smile

          I recommend removing the twenty-foot pole from your ass. I think this is making a mountain out of half a molehill. I really don’t get why people get so worked up over nothing.

          Steve Mills was in violation of copyright. All attempts to contact him were rebuffed and when one DID get through, he merely switched from one violation to another.

          Why exactly does Steve Mills deserve respect for violating copyright? And how was anything in this post an “attack?” This is amateur hour on your part.

          This isn’t the first time I’ve been compared to a creationist for telling uptight dickheads that they’re throwing temper tantrums like a fucking five-year-old, but I guess that’s the kind of asshat I’m dealing with.

          1. Justin

            I see that my last post hasn’t made you think before you post any more than you were before.

            “I recommend removing the twenty-foot pole from your ass. I think this is making a mountain out of half a molehill. I really don’t get why people get so worked up over nothing.”

            I could easily say the same about you. You are all up in arms about my opinion of the demeanor of Mr. Glasser toward Mr. Mills and my break down of his response. Why? The only person I see getting worked up is you. No one else is talking about taking twenty-foot poles from other peoples asses.

            “Steve Mills was in violation of copyright. All attempts to contact him were rebuffed and when one DID get through, he merely switched from one violation to another.”

            Alleged copyright violation. I can’t be sure that he linked to TAE on every upload but I do know there was at least one that he did as it was how I first got to TAE when I first started watching the videos. I don’t usually go through the “About” section on YouTube so I couldn’t possibly verify or deny the links existence on every video. I did, just now, try and load up those videos but it seems Mr. Mills has removed them from his channel (though I did find several other channels with uploads of TAE episodes that had no links back to TAE). It has yet to be shown how Mr. Mills violated the creative commons licence so I won’t even bother with that.

            To my knowledge, when he was contacted he was not asked to stop uploading videos, nor was he cited with copyright violations and told to conform, he was simply asked not to upload entire episodes on one video and he complied with that request by breaking up the videos by caller time.

            “Why exactly does Steve Mills deserve respect for violating copyright? And how was anything in this post an “attack?” This is amateur hour on your part.”

            Everyone deserves respect. Scenario – You are crossing the street outside of a crosswalk and a cop stops you for jay walking. Do you expect the cop to have respect for you as he interacts with you? What would you think if the cop called you an asshole or accused you of acting in a childish manner when you hadn’t been? And then to top if off the cop wrote in his report that you responded in an angry tone an explanation of why you were jay walking when in fact there was no “tone” to speak of? Mr. Glasser’s and Ms. Peeples posts have been attacks on the character of Mr. Mills. Your jab about amateur hour is weak and is only there to try and sway the other readers into believing that I have no clue what I’m talking about.

            “This isn’t the first time I’ve been compared to a creationist for telling uptight dickheads that they’re throwing temper tantrums like a fucking five-year-old, but I guess that’s the kind of asshat I’m dealing with.”

            I have no doubt this isn’t the first time you’ve been compared to a creationists way of thinking. It’s unoriginal, filled with fallacy and blatantly disrespectful. At no point in anything I have commented on could you accuse me of being a 5 year old throwing a temper tantrum. I am only an asshole to those people who don’t like hearing the truth.

            Don’t bother responding any further as I won’t be comment on anymore of your responses. You’ve only proven to me that you’re biased toward TAE and that you are uninterested in investigating what Mr. Glasser has commented on for yourself. You’ve also proven that you can’t stay calm and have a realistic conversation.

            Good day.

            I SAID GOOD DAY!

          2. Martin Wagner

            Mr. Glasser’s and Ms. Peeples posts have been attacks on the character of Mr. Mills.

            Probably because Steve Mills has displayed rather questionable character.

            Your jab about amateur hour is weak and is only there to try and sway the other readers into believing that I have no clue what I’m talking about.

            As you’ve been doing a rather good job of that on your own, I agree, it was redundant of Monocle Smile to make the effort.

          3. John Iacoletti

            How is splitting an episode into pieces and posting all of them not the same as posting entire episodes?

          4. Justin

            To John Lacoletti,

            “How is splitting an episode into pieces and posting all of them not the same as posting entire episodes?”

            How is a clip of a show not a clip of a show?

            I’ll be here all week.

    2. 12.2
      Muz

      Terrible Elevator Muzak is always sinister!

      This is interesting though. Could it be a misunderstanding? The fella does sound uncommunicative for one reason or another. I wonder why that is. Maybe he’s a shy sort.

    3. 12.3
      Tina Keb

      Its nice to see someone stand up for Mr Mills. I have watch TAE exclusively from Steve Mills simply because it fills a need that TAE did not fill themselves. I hope Martin Wagner will post to the same quality that Steve Mills has.

      1. Justin

        I’m sure the videos will be fine except for the ability to comment on them. If they plan on using this site as a discussion forum they really need to change the way messages and posts are handled. I know currently here someone can reply to a message of yours and eventually you won’t be able to reply directly to someones post (if that makes any sense).

        1. Jack Ellis

          That seems to be more a format issue on FTB than anything.

        2. Muz

          I don’t understand this preciousness about youtube comments. One, the system was terrible and is now worse and two, the desire to comment right on the video is just weird and valueless aside from habit as far as I can see.
          It’s like saying “No I don’t want to discuss things in a centralised place often with the people actually involved and with other like minded folks. I want to cast my thoughts (previously in 500 characters or less) to the ether under some ill seen off-cut that’s a copy of a copy of a copy potentially on some random’s channel where things have no relationship to anything”

          It’s like standing on a street corner talking away with your eyes closed about things in the the newspaper. The feeling of immediacy and relevance from having these comments right next to the video you just watched are an illusion! Don’t people realise this?

          1. Justin

            The value of having comments on/at the video itself is traffic to those comments. It’s a fact that people are more likely to read comments on the video than they are going to a different site after watching the video. You can say that if people don’t care enough to click a link and go to the comments of a video on another site that it doesn’t really matter what they think anyway or it doesn’t really matter that they take away from the video the intended message… but it does matter…

            If this site handled messages and reply better I’d be inclined to agree this would be a great centralized location but as it stands a few replies in and you are no longer able to reply to replies… Hard to hold a conversation when you can’t respond directly to someone.

            I personally find the comments on YouTube far easier to deal with now than before the change and I can also ignore dipshits and trolls and other morons like Monocle Smile with the click of the mouse.

            “The feeling of immediacy and relevance from having these comments right next to the video you just watched are an illusion!”

            It’s not an illusion…

          2. Muz

            I don’t see any evidence for this apparent immediacy being better at all. Only habit and preference. Numerous channels shut down their comments and took them off site in the wake of G+ roll out. It seems to be working rather well for the ones I’ve looked at.

            Indeed you’re the only person Ive encountered that actually likes this change. Most opposition to it is concerns over cross pollination of identity and other anonymity/privacy concerns. Well the AXP blog has ‘em covered there.
            I’d prefer it if youtube killed comments entirely so we can stop talking about this like it matters to anything. I expect to see more of that on a per channel basis anyway now. One day we’ll forget what all the fuss was about.

            The comments only nest three deep, otherwise they nest until all you have is a single unreadable column of text half way off the page. You can keep replying to the first comment in the last sub-column. ie if there’s no ‘reply’ link in a post it’s probably in the final nesting. Find the post at the top of that column to keep adding to it.

        3. mary2

          Justin, TAE absolutely have to change the ability to reply to blogs on this site. Currently it appears to be quite acceptable for two people to derail a thread by posting the same reply over and over and over. Your whines are invalid. You are not a paying customer and Russel made it quite clear in the blog why this decision had been taken. Their content: their choice.

          1. Justin

            The sheer lack of respect or intelligence in this thread is absolutely amazing….

            Are you saying TAE has to change the ability to reply to blogs on this site?

            “Currently it appears to be quite acceptable for two people to derail a thread by posting the same reply over and over and over.”

            This site or YouTube?

            “Your whines are invalid.”

            Where was I whining? Need quotes please…

            “You are not a paying customer and Russel made it quite clear in the blog why this decision had been taken.”

            Because I’m not a paying customer means I can’t express my opinion? Okay…. I guess if they don’t want to hear my opinion they can ban me from the site…

            “Their content: their choice.”

            While you sound like a broken record I agree.. Don’t know if you knew that…

  13. 13
    tosspotovich

    With all due respect to the hosts and everyone producing the show, the visual element is really unnecessary for a call in format. For anyone complaining about compatibility or portability issues get the podcast.

    What I miss though is the after show. Is that only available on the live stream? Any chance it could be extended to other formats?

    1. 13.1
      John Kruger

      I have to agree. Aside from the odd coffee mug demonstration the value of the show is indeed entirely audio.

      It would be nice if Godless Bitches and Non-Prophets got back on Stitcher the way TAE remains on it, I like to consume Podcasts on my Android phone, but I am not so entitled as to make demands of people that are essentially entertaining me without any compensation whatsoever on a volunteer basis.

      The after show thing has been brought up before, but apparently the way they capture the audio is tied up with the broadcast in some way. I still think they should just record shows in the new studio and broadcast previously recorded shows on public access TV concurrently so that they can still get callers, but I realize I don’t really have any say in the matter. The recording quality of the podcasted experiment in the new studio had astoundingly better audio quality.

      1. tosspotovich

        I use Podkicker on Android (or any unaffiliated aggregator I suppose) and get all three shows.

        Shame about the after show, maybe it will be addressed in the future. I hope the powers that be know there is a demand.

        1. John Kruger

          I find myself liking Podkicker much better than Stitcher. Thanks for the tip!

          I am fairly sure people are aware that the after show would be appreciated on the podcast, the hurdles seem to be exclusively technical.

  14. 14
    Kris Flory

    Regardless of your intentions, copyrights, and current availability of your content on other channels/websites this is going to impact viewership and reception of your show. I know it has negatively impacted my perception of those involved on your side.

    1. 14.1
      Monocle Smile

      It’s a good thing the opinions of idiots who care more about bullshit superficial PR appearances than actual facts generally don’t impact how the show is run. Let the door hit you on the way out.

    2. 14.2
      Justin

      Mine as well Kris Flory.

  15. 15
    Anthony Magnabosco

    I wonder who was hosting the TAE content that Ricky Gervais recently watched and positively tweeted about.
    @magnabosco

  16. 16
    Justin

    For whatever reason I am unable to reply directly to Mr. Wagner’s response to one of my messages. I’ll repost it here and respond accordingly.

    ” ‘Mr. Glasser’s and Ms. Peeples posts have been attacks on the character of Mr. Mills.’

    Probably because Steve Mills has displayed rather questionable character.

    ‘Your jab about amateur hour is weak and is only there to try and sway the other readers into believing that I have no clue what I’m talking about.’

    As you’ve been doing a rather good job of that on your own, I agree, it was redundant of Monocle Smile to make the effort.”

    Feel free to show us this “questionable” character. I have yet to see anything from Mr. Mills that is even slightly in bad taste.

    Are you implying that I don’t know what I’m talking about Mr. Wagner? Is that why you only wanted to focus on these two comments and not respond at all to the wall of text that I initially left?

  17. 17
    mary2

    Christ, there are a lot of whingers in the world. Talk about much ado about nothing.

    I can just picture all the dead bodies in the street because there are only 6 different methods for us to view each episode of TAE instead of 7.

    Your content; your choice about how you want to share it. End of story.

    1. 17.1
      Monocle Smile

      This pretty much sums it up. Well played.

    2. 17.2
      J M

      Good one mary2, lets devalue the considerations of others as “whining” and “nothing.” That way we don’t have to extend empathy outside of our own preferences. Other people have grown to value particulars that I don’t recognize? Bah! Babies…

      1. Cera

        It IS whining.

        People don’t have the right to take the work of others and simply do what they will with it.

        If one is complaining that said work is not available in their preferred format while still being easily accessible and totally free they are fucking whining.

        1. Justin

          “People don’t have the right to take the work of others and simply do what they will with it.”

          No one is saying that they do have that right.

        2. J M

          “If one is complaining that said work is not available in their preferred format while still being easily accessible and totally free they are fucking whining.”

          You’re comment seems to lack any consideration for the value that Steve’s uploads had for many. It’s easy to only consider issues that affect one personally. Especially when the values of others haven’t been made clear to one. Steve’s channel was the most active place to discuss calls to the show online. If you don’t really value that discussion, or did so elsewhere, then that’s fine, but don’t ignore the values of others.

          1. Cera

            “You’re comment seems to lack any consideration for the value that Steve’s uploads had for many. It’s easy to only consider issues that affect one personally. Especially when the values of others haven’t been made clear to one. Steve’s channel was the most active place to discuss calls to the show online” while also swiping the content produced by someone else in its entirety.

            Fixed that for you.

            There’s plenty of stuff that has value that you cannot or should not do.

          2. EnlightenmentLiberal

            while also swiping the content produced by someone else in its entirety.

            It’s not swiping as soon as they voluntarily gave it away. That’s what the creative commons license is. The ACA does not have a leg to stand on for this argument, legal or moral.

            Anyone know a politically correct term for “Indian giver”?

      2. Jasper of Maine

        Good one mary2, lets devalue the considerations of others as “whining” and “nothing.”

        That’s presupposing they had any value in the first place. Not all opinions are created equal. There are thresholds where the complaints are just ridiculous from the start.

        1. J M

          “That’s presupposing they had any value in the first place.”

          Oh Steve’s uploads had lots of value to many. As I keep having to reiterate, Steve’s channel had more discussion on a call to call basis than any other location online. That combined with prompt uploads made it the best for many. For you to say that ALL criticisms of this action to shutdown Steve lack value, is so blatantly absurd and inconsiderate.

          1. Jasper of Maine

            Oh Steve’s uploads had lots of value to many.

            I’m sure they do – but that doesn’t necessarily translate into valuable opinions.

            As I keep having to reiterate, Steve’s channel had more discussion on a call to call basis than any other location online.

            And they can do that here. Problem solved – thus, that complaint has no value.

            The ACA doesn’t have the resources to moderate two forums, so it redirects from one of theirs to here. That’s reasonable. The only reasons I’ve heard so far as to why they won’t come here to comment is because of some deranged fantasy about a “totalitarian agenda”.

            Steve could have abided by the wishes of the ACA and kept his forum going. Instead, he decided to throw a tantrum, and delete all the videos – ruining it for everyone. That was not reasonable.

            That combined with prompt uploads made it the best for many.

            The prompt uploads issue is now solved – thus, the complaint has no value.

            For you to say that ALL criticisms of this action to shutdown Steve lack value, is so blatantly absurd and inconsiderate.

            It’s not absurd when we can go down through the list and find that virtually all the complaints have to merit. It’s a bunch of people whining about not having free content, that they don’t have to put any effort into producing, from week to week, delivered to them in exactly the way they want, despite the ACA going above and beyond the call of duty to provide a myriad of ways to view the content, and to provide an official forum for commentary/feedback.

            The complaints seem to boil down to “wah wah I don’t like it!” – No value.

          2. John Iacoletti

            We’ve always promptly uploaded our videos — just not to youtube.

          3. Muz

            Why was that btw?
            I’m curious about the balkanisation of internet video in general. I knew of some video producers a while ago who swore off youtube for one reason or another and went with Twitch, Vimeo, Blink etc. I forget why exactly. Something about the fine print of the terms of service, or when Google really took over. I’m not sure though. (and most of them are on youtube now anyway).

            I’m curious if anything in particular like that kept TAE off youtube officially or it’s just a case of never getting around to it?

          4. J M

            @Jasper of Maine:

            “That’s presupposing they had any value in the first place.”
            “I’m sure they do”

            Did you forget what you said last post? The value of his uploads is based on the individuals who valued them. So why would I need to presuppose that said statements have value to them if you accept the premise yourself?

            “And they can do that here. Problem solved – thus, that complaint has no value.”

            Online discussion involves checking and replying to comments. Far fewer TAE viewers are on this blog compared to Youtube. And even more are on Youtube for more reasons than checking comments. Frequent FT blogs purely for one comment thread? As opposed to frequenting Youtube for many reasons? The FT blog discussion on episode 839 only now has 225 comments. While Steve’s upload of the episode had almost 400 comments when it was removed. “No value”? Far from it.

            “The ACA doesn’t have the resources to moderate two forums, so it redirects from one of theirs to here.”

            Steve was moderating that channel nicely. Additionally, Youtube has self-moderating mechanisms.

            “Steve could have abided by the wishes of the ACA and kept his forum going. Instead, he decided to throw a tantrum, and delete all the videos – ruining it for everyone. That was not reasonable.”

            He did abide by their wishes, splitting up videos when asked. If you are taking time to split up videos, edit/number them. Uploading on average 5 videos a week for an organization, that then comes around and slaps you down. It’s no surprise that such inconsideration would change his views of the organization. Perhaps no longer wanting to support them. Indicative of a “tantrum”? Hardly.

            “The prompt uploads issue is now solved – thus, the complaint has no value.”

            The fact that Martin is now solving that doesn’t devalue it as point regarding the benefits of Steve’s uploads as they were.

            “It’s not absurd when we can go down through the list and find that virtually all the complaints have to merit.”

            But you haven’t shown the lack of value in any of the complaints in my comment. You’ve just self-servingly thrown them to the side based on a lack of consideration for the reasoning of those affected. And when it comes to complaints of others here, on Facebook, and on Steve’s initial video on the subject, I saw a number of other reasonable complaints.

          5. cafeeineaddicted

            “Frequent FT blogs purely for one comment thread? As opposed to frequenting Youtube for many reasons?”

            I’m confused: Are some people on a different network, where it requires them to move to a different computer depending on which domain they are on? I don’t get this argument at all. I’ve left comments of dozens of sites on a single thread that interested me.
            How is following multiple threads on a single platform any different than following them on different platforms?
            The only two reasons that seem to have merit is that different sites require different logins, which isn’t the case here, as you can login with google on both youtube and FTB, and a personal preference to the layout used, which is unfortunate, but not enough to counteract the ACA’s right to manage its content as they see fit.

          6. J M

            @cafeeineaddicted:

            “I don’t get this argument at all. I’ve left comments of dozens of sites on a single thread that interested me.”

            Well the more online locations you need to check per day the worse. People who use Youtube primarily have been using Steve’s channel to discuss the calls. That Steve’s uploads were about 2x more active in discussion than FTB, and far above Facebook, at least shows that people are less inclined to check FTB to discuss a caller/episode. And far less inclined to follow a discussion.

            “…and a personal preference to the layout used, which is unfortunate…”

            Well for example, can you reply directly to replies to replies here? I can’t. And if you can’t, you can’t activate an email notification, assuming people tick that box here. And whether people check their email as their main source. But regardless, other factors exist, like the kind of comments. FTB is more homogeneous, and has its own issues. On Youtube you can find a wider range of viewers, including more conflicting positions on the subject that the initial comment about the caller was on.

            “…but not enough to counteract the ACA’s right to manage its content as they see fit.”

            “Manage”? As far as I can tell the ACA can produce content and release it under the licenses that they want. Currently it allows people to share released content it in other contexts.

      3. Justin

        This is exactly the tact that Monocle Smile is taking in the majority of his responses to posters on this site.

  18. 18
    eriktb

    Doesn’t it seem a bit strange to those defending Mr. Mill’s that he has no original content? He currently has 17 videos posted and all are brief clips from news broadcasts. There isn’t even any sort of additional commentary beyond a couple lines in the description.

    1. 18.1
      Justin

      No, it doesn’t seem strange at all and it doesn’t have anything to do with the current conversation.

  19. 19
    anonatheist

    The hosts of the atheist experience need to get over themselves. And quit with the masturbatory, ego-centric, self-righteous snobbery that they portray in thinking they’ve earned by being atheists who scream and yell their opinion and call unintelligent people “idiots” to make themselves feel intelligent by comparison. Not believing in a god is not some groundbreaking achievement in intellectualism; congratulations in not thinking santa is real. And open up your comment section because your ideas are not infallible and should be open to scrutiny by your detractors and supporters alike.

    1. 19.1
      John Iacoletti

      Umm…it seems to me that you were just able to make a comment.

      1. anonatheist

        Yes on THIS site. But not on youtube, and I suspect it’s because you want to drive traffic to freethoughtsblogs to push it’s batshit totalitarian agenda.

        1. Jasper of Maine

          wat

        2. John Iacoletti

          I think Russell already explained that in his OP. What’s the point of commenting in a place where nobody associated with the show will read it?

          1. Justin

            Was there no point of the viewers of the show to post comments on Mr. Mills channel when they watched it there? The point is for discussion and to learn point of views that may not be the same as others. The point is for a better understanding.

            I personally don’t understand what everyone’s beef with google+ is. It is far easier to get back to the comments that you’ve posted, easier to see who has liked your response, easier to see what conversations you’re in, and easier to ignore the trolls and spammers….

          2. mary2

            Ahh. The truth will out! It is “easier to see who has liked your response [when commenting on Youtube].”. When commenting on this site you don’t get to see how much everybody loves you! How very ‘totalitarian’!

          3. Justin

            Seriously Mary2? I mean really? That’s what you took away from my response? Okay… WOW smh….

        3. Muz

          Because Google is the last bastion of privacy and free speech in the world and have no profit motive whatsoever… oh.

      2. Jasper of Maine

        Stop censoring himmm!!!!11!11

    2. 19.2
      annabucci

      “by being atheists who scream and yell their opinion”

      They do this? since when?

  20. 20
    Nathan Wilkes

    I just checked out the video as well as the host’s comments on all this and they reacted rather childishly. They presented the issue in a way to vilify all of TAE to all of his channel subscribers rather than like an honest adult, explain why they were down and say they were working on an agreement.

    For all the people who choose not to follow the show anymore because of how Steve Miller presented this, it’s a pity since they can’t have been paying much attention before if they reacted so emotionally to this.

    1. 20.1
      Russell Glasser

      I’ve found that we cannot really spend time obsessing over whether this or that action will make some people stop watching or not. I think it’s good policy to be courteous and transparent, and I’ve done my best to do so in my response. But in the long run all we can really do is speak our minds and make a show that we want to watch, and trust that the kinds of people who want to watch will find it. If this dispute means that most of the Steve Mills regulars will jump ship, it’s a pity but that’s just the way it will be.

    2. 20.2
      Monocle Smile

      I’m sorry you value tact over honesty. Tact has its place, but it only goes so far.

    3. 20.3
      Justin

      The message from Mr. Glasser vilified TAE all on it’s own.

      I find it hilarious that Mr. Glasser is only responding to people that agree with him or are on his side and has yet to respond to any opinion that when against his blog.

      1. mary2

        He probably has much better things to do than respond to everyone who says “I don’t like you. You are a meany”. Why do you think the hosts of TAE owe you? You are not paying them. This is something they do for kicks. They don’t owe you video or responses to your comments.

        1. Justin

          You’re probably right. He probably does have better things to do. I wonder why that same consideration wasn’t given to Steve Mills when he didn’t respond to stuff sent by TAE. I mean they weren’t paying him, it was something he was doing for kicks, he didn’t owe them anything….

          1. LykeX

            I wonder why that same consideration wasn’t given to Steve Mills when he didn’t respond to stuff sent by TAE

            Maybe because it’s a slightly different situation. Responding to random people who post their unsolicited opinions vs. responding to the creators of the content you’re posting when they raise concerns about your non-compliance with the licensing agreement.

            One is optional, the other isn’t. When you’re breaking the rules, you don’t get to use the “I’ve got better things to do” excuse anymore.

            You do get that, right? You do see how these two situations are very different on a very important point, right?

          2. Justin

            “Maybe because it’s a slightly different situation. Responding to random people who post their unsolicited opinions vs. responding to the creators of the content you’re posting when they raise concerns about your non-compliance with the licensing agreement.

            One is optional, the other isn’t. When you’re breaking the rules, you don’t get to use the “I’ve got better things to do” excuse anymore.

            You do get that, right? You do see how these two situations are very different on a very important point, right?”

            The thing is, he wasn’t consciously ignoring their concerns. TAE would have you believe that they successfully contacted Steve Mills a multitude of times when in fact they only contacted him twice. Both times they asked him to do something and both times he complied….

          3. LykeX

            The thing is, he wasn’t consciously ignoring their concerns

            In that case, what was your point with this:

            He probably does have better things to do. I wonder why that same consideration wasn’t given to Steve Mills when he didn’t respond to stuff sent by TAE

            Because that seems to imply that he did receive the message and deliberately didn’t respond because he had “better things to do”.

          4. AhmNee

            It really doesn’t matter if Mr. Mills never received a message sent by TAE. To reuse an analogy I have used elsewhere. If you parked your car on my lawn, I could leave polite notes on your door all day asking for you to move it. It doesn’t matter that you usually go in through the garage and never saw the notes. Eventually I’m going to send a registered letter that says, “Either you move your car or I’m having it towed.” That’s what Russel’s email was. It was the last attempt to get his attention before something drastic had to be done. That you didn’t see the polite notes before the nasty-gram matters bugger all.

            It was his responsibility to make sure he was following the license that allowed him to use the content. I keep seeing people trying to defend him by saying things that essentially boil down to “He was following part of the requirements” or “It wasn’t THAT big of a breach of the copyright” as if that makes everything okay. It does not. Being out of compliance is being out of compliance.

            I understand you liked the community that you built over at Mr. Mills channel. But much like the complaints I’ve argued against with other videos that didn’t allow comments. Not allowing you to discuss in the youtube comments is NOT the same as stifling your ability to discuss the video. You don’t like FTB, fine. GO GET YOUR OWN FORUM AND DISCUSS THERE. There’s no shortage of free forum providers. Go find one, use the embed function from youtube to link back to the official TAE channel videos. This seems pretty “no brainer” to me.

            See, when I or others here listen to your complaint about not wanting to post here, what we hear is “I’m used to having the spot I was accustomed to and I didn’t have to put forth any effort and now you want me to and I that hurts my feels”. So, yes. It does sound like so much whining. Someone has “changed the forum software” for your favorite hangout. Now, you can do what every one of us has had to do at some point. Deal with the changes or go find a different forum, which can include starting one of your own.

          5. EnlightenmentLiberal

            @AhmNee
            What requirements did he not follow? Do you have screenshots or similar of uploads which lacked the missing attribution or links or whatever?

          6. Monocle Smile

            EL:

            Steve Mills has commented on this blog post now. He literally admitted he didn’t link to the license in his video descriptions or anything of the sort. He posted what he DID put in the descriptions.

          7. EnlightenmentLiberal

            Mmm. Thanks. So fault lies with both sides. Meh. My complaints towards the ACA largely stand.

          8. AhmNee

            LOL. There’s some “Enlightened” logic for you.

            “The person I was defending was shown to be in the wrong, therefore it was both of their fault. And my critisizm based largely on the understanding that the person I was defending was in the right still stands because, reasons.”

          9. Steve Mills

            @ AhmNee
            ““That was rude. I want everyone to know how mean they are to me.””

            Why are those sentences in quotes?
            I never wrote that. That is deceiving and dishonest of you.
            That only infers that you are more on the side of dishonesty rather than truth.
            You are likely more interested in the sport of argument than truthful discussion.
            I have 3 other posts on this blog which explains my position thoroughly without having to repeat myself ad nauseam. Please read or reread those posts. Thanks

          10. EnlightenmentLiberal

            @AhmNee

            I don’t know what’s so hard to understand. I’m criticizing the ACA. I’m not holding Mills blameless because I honestly do not know enough of the situation. I am saying that the ACA looks to be on quite sketchy ground compared to Steve Mills, and seems to be very much on the wrong end of the law and on morals. I have explained my reasons: If the ACA sent requests for the reasons of actual non-compliance, then that’s both moral and legal. If it’s non-compliance in corner cases, or if the other guy is willing to work in good faith to fix it up, then that is preferred. If the ACA sent requests for the reasons of not wanting others to post full episodes, then that is both immoral and illegal. If the ACA sent requests stating that their reasons for the requests are actual non-compliance, but their actual unstated reasons are because he was posting full videos, then it’s legal, but damn is it immoral.

            I do not understand what is so difficult to understand of this position. I am not holding Steve Mills blameless. Sometimes both sides can be wrong, and this may well be one of those time. I clearly hedged my bets. Regardless of whether Steve Mills was in the wrong, the ACA conducted themselves in a way that is inviting a lawsuit.

            Let me put it like this. I know that if I was on the receiving end of the ACA’s abuse and if I was largely in actual compliance with the license, then I would have demanded a full retraction with the proper legal reasoning as a separate blog post, including a public acquiescence to the demands of no future harassment of those merely for posting full episodes. If that was not provided then I would have sued, and probably won. I don’t know if I would have gotten any monetary damages or attorney’s fees. Unless I was feeling especially pissy, and only if the ACA conducted themselves far worse would I have sought any damages above merely enforcing the contract terms. Either way, my guess is that I would not get any monetary damages nor attorney’s fees. However, I would win the lawsuit.

          11. EnlightenmentLiberal

            If the ACA sent requests for the reasons of not wanting others to post full episodes, then that is both immoral and illegal.

            Sorry – correction. It’s arguably immoral, but a mere request is not illegal. If they purported to be acting to preserve their copyright, even then that might not be illegal, but they would be legally wrong, etc etc.

            PS: Hell, I would probably be able to win a defamation vs the ACA. The ACA publicly accused someone by name of a crime. From my limited wikipedia understanding, most US states consider that to be statutory defamation, so I don’t have to show any actual damages. AFAIK, I would just have to show that they knew the accusation was false, or that they had a reckless disregard for the truth of the claim. Depending on the particulars and whether there actually was significant actual non-compliance with the license, I might be able to meet that standard.

          12. LykeX

            I know that if I was on the receiving end of the ACA’s abuse and if I was largely in actual compliance with the license…

            IANAL, but I think that being “largely” in compliance is not enough to be protected and certainly not enough to push a counterclaim against those who ask you to stop violating their rights.

          13. AhmNee

            “Let me put it like this. I know that if I was on the receiving end of the ACA’s abuse and if I was largely in actual compliance with the license, then I would have demanded a full retraction with the proper legal reasoning as a separate blog post, including a public acquiescence to the demands of no future harassment of those merely for posting full episodes. If that was not provided then I would have sued, and probably won.”

            EL, you are deluding yourself if you think you or he’d have a leg to stand on. The ACA was making neither illegal nor immoral requests. There may have been some confusion but what they were making were simply non-legally binding requests. From the CC website:
            http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees

            -Consider licensor preferences.
            -Consider complying with non-binding requests by the licensor.

            -The licensor may make special requests when you use the material. We recommend you do so when reasonable, but that is your option and not your obligation.

            Now, the ACA may have been confused about whether their request was binding or not. But that hardly makes it illegal or immoral. Second. Mills was out of compliance. There’s no gray area. From the website:

            -Termination is automatic.

            -All CC licenses terminate automatically when you fail to comply with its terms. If the material is under a 4.0 license, you must fix the problem within 30 days of discovery if you want your rights automatically reinstated.

            So Steve, by not complying FULLY with the license had NO rights to post what he did. Now, there may have been some confusion and the ACA perhaps should have said he had 30 days to comply but they had taken NO ACTION against Steve other than to send him a strongly worded email.

            I simply do not understand this victim complex you’re gushing about. I suggest you find one of those free consultation lawyers and ask them how quickly your frivolous case would be thrown out if you tried to sue.

          14. EnlightenmentLiberal

            @AhmNee
            Read the words that I’m typing: That would be if it was me, and if I was in compliance. Also, Russell and the ACA are asshats for more or less directly stating that they feel that it’s ok to ask people to take down full episodes when they released those episodes under creative commons. That is my central point. Furthermore, hiding behind technicalities of the contract when their explicitly stated actual goal is to subvert the contract is also acting like asshats. They seemingly don’t give a rat’s ass about upholding the “spirit” of the contract, and instead are using the contract as a weapon to prevent exactly what it was supposed to allow. The free software guy in me is incredibly pissed about this behavior.

          15. EnlightenmentLiberal

            @AhmNee
            If I was posting videos, and if I was in compliance, and if someone someone posted something like what Russell did here: “. In short, I brought up a copyright violation [...]“, then I would have several options. If that happened, then I would seek declaratory judgment that I am in not in copyright violation, and I would also seek damages under statutory defamation. I would probably win.

            Now, if Steve Mills did fail to fulfill the license criteria to a T, then he could probably not win. That’s why I was exceedingly clear in all of my posts. You even quoted it when replying to me, where I said: “I know that if I was on the receiving end of the ACA’s abuse and if I was largely in actual compliance with the license“. Perhaps I need to drop that “largely” to be correct. You win on that pedantics there.

  21. 21
    Mike Haynes

    I never had a problem with Blip TV or the mp3 files, and I’m not sure why folks are so up in arms about TAE enforcing a copyright of something they produced. The TAE Youtube channel is up to date now, and as for making comments on the show, that’s what this space on their blog is provided for. It seems like a lot of complaining from people who think the world is supposed to revolve around their own selfish wants. Grow up people, seriously.

    1. 21.1
      Justin

      People aren’t up in arms about TAE enforcing a copyright or TAE wanting people to upload videos per their guidelines. If you really want to know what they are up in arms about please go read the posts by them. One post is mine and you can clearly see what my concerns are regarding this situation. It’s number 12.

  22. 22
    Monocle Smile

    Seems like some people aren’t happy unless they’re stroking a rage boner over spilled milk. Imaginary spilled milk.

    This is not a big deal; the fact that AXP has taken enough flak to warrant a blog post is pathetic on the part of the fans.

  23. 23
    jacobfromlost

    That’s it! THAT’S IT!

    I’m never listening to the Steve Miller Band again!

    End of story.

  24. 24
    dekomitri

    Hi Russel,

    You said, “Steve’s videos were in violation because (1) he didn’t use the Creative Commons License, and (2) he didn’t link back to us.”

    Steve Mills had a description and links to AXP and ACA in every one of his video descriptions . He also mentioned the CC in the comments as well as clarifying that he has no affiliation to AXP or ACA.

    Cheers

    - Dimitri

    1. 24.1
      Justin

      Kind of a mute point now that Mr. Mills has removed all the TAE videos from his channel but I have to agree with you. All the evidence shows that Mr. Mills has complied with TAE and their wishes when they have successfully contacted him.

      1. otrame

        That is a moot point, not a mute point. Not an uncommon mistake for people who listen more than they read.

        1. Felipe

          “because grammar”

          1. Justin

            giggle

          2. Schlumbumbi

            Ah, I’m getting old. When I grew up, the word “grammar” meant the correct stucturing of sentences, not the spelling.

          3. Justin

            I didn’t misspell “mute”, I misused the word…

          4. jacobfromlost

            Should be:

            I didn’t misspell “mute”; I misused the word.

            Because grammar.

            (giggle)

  25. 25
    EnlightenmentLiberal

    After reading some of the youtube comments and such, I’m actually really confused. To the members of TAE: What was the initial ask of Steve Mills? To not post full videos? Or to properly follow the license? The youtube commenters are making it seem like the primary problem is posting of full videos, and not the licensing problems such as proper attribution. If so, I have to say that TAE and the ACA are behaving quite unreasonably, unethically, and maybe maybe illegally. If your major gripe with the man is that he’s posting full episodes, then you should not have released them under a free license agreement. If your major gripe with the man is that he’s lowering viewers on other venues, then again you should not have released the episodes under a free license agreement.

    On the other hand, if your major gripe with the man is that he’s getting money from youtube from commercializing your work, then I entirely understand your position, and I can definitely support that. Furthermore, that’s probably breach of license (guessing).

    Could I please have some clarity from TAE and the ACA?

    1. 25.1
      Justin

      I wish you luck in getting a response from anyone at TAE that will answer your questions. It seems they are satisfied with the explanation they gave, even though some people poked a bunch of holes in it, and will not be addressing this topic any further.

      This whole situation makes me feel like my favorite super hero wasn’t the hero I thought he was. I thought he was incapable of acting or being a certain way but I was wrong. Yet another of life’s many let downs.

      1. Monocle Smile

        Wow. Get over yourself. You appear to be a sad, sad human being with a rather troubling obsession and a really distorted idea of how the world works. Or you’re Steve Mills’ mother.

        1. Justin

          How many times do I have to clown you in this thread? You’d think that a staunch supporter of the show would have better debating skills just from watching Mr. Dillahunty.

          You’re the most pathetic person on this thread.

          1. mary2

            Yeah Monocle, you’re pathetic. Says the man with supreme debating skills and a rather overextended sense of idol worship gone bad.

          2. Justin

            I wouldn’t say idol worship… I’d say I definitely looked up to the cast and crew at TAE though… as I’m sure a lot of other people do. They are hero’s in the sense they are saving the world from religious morons…. I just don’t see them in the best of light anymore even the ones that aren’t involved directly with these circumstances as they are just sitting idley by (as far as I know).

            I will credit Mr. Wagner with disagreeing with how this situation has been handled…

    2. 25.2
      EnlightenmentLiberal

      Hmm… Rereading everything, it seems as though TAE and the ACA are completely in the wrong here.

      If Russell’s opening blog post is anything to go by, the motivations of the ACA in pursuing this are:
      1- Wanting to avoid confusion between fan distributions and official distributions.
      2- Wanting to put all of the conversation about content in a single place.
      3- Wanting to improve their monetization of their content by limiting alternative distributions.

      Frankly, TAE and the ACA are just flat out wrong on number 3. If you want to make money off your work, then you do not release your work under a free-to-share license. You do not have a moral or legal leg to stand on.

      Furthermore, I am concerned that the recent actions of the ACA might constitute harassment, breach of contract, and a few other things, which the ACA could be liable for in civil court. If Steve Mills operated in good faith and generally obeyed the licensing requirements of the contract – which it appears that he did – then I think that he has a good case to file suit against the ACA.

      As I have mentioned previously, if you have reason to believe that Steve Mills was gaining money from youtube ads, then he was in breach of contract, which puts the ACA in the right. However, if the reasons for the actions of the ACA are the reasons laid out by Russell, then I would be quite concerned if I was the ACA.

      Note that I am not trained in legal matters in any such way, and this is all directly pulled out of my ass. I do hope that the ACA have already sought the advice of a trained legal professional in this matter.

      1. Jasper of Maine

        Way to be melodramatic.

        Assuming for a moment that they did violate the creative commons agreement, under what basis would he sue? Contracts are usually evaluated to assess damages or reparations – what exactly is Mills sue over? What damages? Does a small number of attempts at communication over instigated concerns – particularly without any reply or attempt to ask them to cease communications – would hold no water.

        The thing the “contract” would do here for Mills is protect him from ACA suing him for copyright violations, and collecting on damages for lost revenue from their product.

        1. jacobfromlost

          I think he was joking. :-)

          1. EnlightenmentLiberal

            I’m dead serious.

            The damages is that he is unable to reproduce the work as allowed and guaranteed under the contract. Throw on attorney’s fees for good measure.

            From my obviously amateur viewpoint, but from someone who reads the case law relevant to open source from time to time, AFAIK it looks like an obvious loss for the ACA if Steve Mills was not making any money.

          2. jacobfromlost

            Oh. It read like a joke.

            The content is the ACA’s, thus everything you said was wrong.

          3. jacobfromlost

            “but from someone who reads the case law relevant to open source from time to time”

            Why do you think ACA’s content is “open source”? Just curious. (Are you getting it confused with “public domain” –which the ACA’s content is NOT either)?

            I’m at a total loss as to what legal theory you think Mills could sue those from whom HE took content (their content). Does he also have the power to make them do shows 7 days a week? Or change the theme song to “Eye of the Tiger”? Or tap dance during the After Shows to the tune of “Hello My Baby”?

            Because I would pay money to see Mills pull off that legal acrobatics.

    3. 25.3
      EnlightenmentLiberal

      @jacobfromlost

      Why is open software relevant? Because the case law surrounding open source software is probably similar to the case law surrounding the creative commons license.

      To be completely presumptuous and pompous, if I were a judge, this is roughly what I would say:

      The Atheist Community of Austin (ACA) maintains a weekly public access television show called The Atheist Experience (TAE). The ACA has released all episodes of TAE under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 license. This license is similar to the GNU license and other copyleft open source licenses. For the purposes of this case, the license gives an unlimited perpetual license to everyone to reproduce the work (TAE episodes), as long as the reproductions contain proper attribution including proper attribution (in the form of a Universal Resource Identifier (URI)), and users of the license do not profit from the reproductions.

      Steve Mills, a fan of the TAE television show, has regularly uploaded and made publicly available many full episodes of TAE. He did not charge for this work, and he did not earn money for his effort.

      Russell Glasser, Jen Peeples, and others, acting in the official capacity of the ACA, sent numerous requests to Steve Mills asking him to not post complete episodes on his youtube channel. The ACA has issued an official explanation for the requests. The explanation lists the following three reasons: the ability to keep all discussion on a particular video in a single place, to prevent confusion between fan reproductions and official distributions, and the ability for the ACA to monetize the work such as by ad driven revenue.

      Steve Mills complied with the letter but not the spirit of the request by splitting the video uploads into separate pieces. However, anyone familiar with youtube would quickly be able to navigate the site and effectively view the entire episode without interruption. Other than that, Steve Mills largely ignored the request to post full episodes.

      Also, the ACA purports that a small number of the total number of TAE episodes on his youtube channel did not contain proper attribution as required by the license. The ACA also sent requests to Steve Mills to add proper attributions. Steve Mills complied in a timely manner.

      After Steve Mills refused several requests to take down the videos, the ACA filed a complaint with youtube, alleging copyright infringement. The videos on Steve Mills youtube channel are currently down, presumably as a result of the action of the ACA.

      As far as the court is aware, none of the aforementioned facts are under contention.

      The court finds that Steve Mills acted in good faith in obeying the licensing requirement, and largely if not completely obeyed the licensing requirement. It may be true that Steve Mills did not add proper attribution to some of videos on youtube, but he did do so properly, and he fixed the missing attributions promptly on request.

      Furthermore, Steve Mills’s youtube channel clearly pointed out that it was a fan channel and was not an official representative of the ACA. The court is sympathetic to the ACA in that confusion does arise from the public, but the court also finds that Steve Mills took appropriate and reasonable actions to state that his channel was a fan work and not an official distribution channel of the ACA, and that there are no reasonable alternatives to better prevent confusion.

      The court finds it implausible that an organization as professional and well funded as the ACA did not understand the creative commons license, and did not have the ability or inclination to seek legal aid in choosing and understanding the contract. Furthermore, the court finds it highly implausible that the members of the ACA managed to find and chose the creative commons license without understanding that the license was clearly intended to and clearly states to allow unlimited wholesale copying of the licensed work. Thus the court finds that the ACA acted in bad faith or was grossly incompetent when it sent the letters to Steve Mills which demanded that he not post full episodes, and when the ACA sent notices to youtube that Steve Mills’s youtube channel was engaging in copyright infringement.

      The court orders the ACA to stop sending communications to Steve Mills improperly demanding that Steve Mills not post full unedited copies of TAE as allowed by the license. The court orders the ACA to contact youtube and work with youtube to restore Steve Mills’s youtube channel. Finally, due to the unreasonableness of the ACA’s actions throughout, the court orders the ACA to pay Steve Mills’s reasonable attorney fees.

      So ordered.

      PS: This is really an open and shut case if he should choose to file. Did you even read the license text? Do you even know the first thing about copyleft licenses and relevant case law?

      1. Helena Handbaskit

        Test. Never commented here before. I appreciated the well reasoned posts by this person.

        I found out about TAE through Steve’s channel. He always said it was a fan site, he always linked to TAE website, which blogs on a controversal site. I am an old fogey, and do find it much easier to post comments on Steve’s site. What I especially like is being able to discover new youtubers by clicking on their comments. I didn’t know why Steve switched to breaking it up by caller, but when he did, the discussions got even better and more organized. Steve’s youtube channel, with its comments, allow for broader community formation inside youtube. He also spreads the word about TAE which I would never have learned about otherwise. He obeyed all of the liscene requirements, and on those vids where he neglected to post links directly to the liscense, he fixed them right away.

        That license allows for copying the entire show anywhere by anyone provided links are posted back to the original and he did that on every vid. He was supporting the show and filling a valuable niche. He made no money off of it. He complied with all the rules. I am still confused, genuinely.

        I thought sincerely that someone was impersonating Russell because the request for Steve to stop is so counter to the tenor of the show’s hosts and to the license itself. I am still unsure about the claims that Steve was out of compliance. He was not out of compliance, and his channel did bring value through its commenting section. It is not in violation of any copyright. It is in complete compliance. I am still baffled after having read through each post here so far.

        Perhaps TAE doesn’t like that Steve’s channel gets so much traffic, and that bad things have been said about some of the hosts (perhaps even by Steve, as was alleged above)? But TAE is the entity that chose the license and terms, and Steve is in compliance, so I remain unablr to wrap my head around the cease and desist letter.

      2. jacobfromlost

        You kidder. You should add in the thing about the tap dancing to “Hello My Baby”.

        1. EnlightenmentLiberal

          Have you ever read any court decisions? Have you ever read any court decisions on open source licenses or “free to share” licenses? That’s probably how it would go.

          If you want to disagree, could you start making sense, like make a specific point of disagreement, instead of a non-constructive blanket dismissal?

          1. jacobfromlost

            You assumed the most favorable view (to Mills) of all the disputed circumstances, then assumed this would be considered by an actual court as something more than a nuisance, and then assumed a decision that would go beyond anything a court would ever actually do.

            Since you already admitted to pulling your legal opinion out of your ass–and I quote, “[T]his is all directly pulled out of my ass”–I’m not quite sure why I have to answer whether I have read any court decisions.

            But since you asked, sure. Why not?

            (And why is it I can’t give a “blanket dismissal” to someone who started the conversation by saying they got everything they are offering “directly” out of their ass? lol)

          2. EnlightenmentLiberal

            I was trying to be nice and offer the ability for others to weigh in with the self deprecation. Apparently this was excessive. (Not really.) While I am not a trained legal expert, I consider myself more knowledge than 99.9% of the average populace in US law concerning these matters, and I consider myself sufficiently well versed that I offer a frank, sober, and accurate assessment to the ACA to check themselves and to seek real legal advice if they feel that I’m wrong.

            I have no need to assume the best of Mills in this scenario. I have been arguing against the justifications laid out by Russell Glasser as hopelessly ignorant of how the legal system works in the US. I am also arguing against Mr. Glasser’s position on moral grounds: It is wrong to freely hand out something, which the ACA did more or less when they released TAE under the creative commons license, only to later demand it back, aka asking people to not reproduce TAE as clearly allowed by the license.

            The blog post is him metaphorically shooting the ACA in the foot in any future legal proceedings. This would not play out well in civil court. If there were no actual licensing violations such as missing attributions, then the case would be rather short due to Mr. Glasser admitting right here that he has absolutely no case and seemingly lacks any understanding of the license.

            Finally, let us discuss whether an actual case would succeed. From the available evidence I’ve been able to gather, Mills was largely in compliance with the ACA, and would promptly add proper attribution if missing upon request. It’s not an assumption, but a tentative conclusion grounded in the best evidence I have available. Thus my tentative conclusion that the ACA would lose any such lawsuit. Furthermore, the ACA has acted in such a grossly irresponsible manner that they may be liable for attorney’s fees (- note that this is the part which I’m rather unsure on, and it’s based on a 5 minute reading of the relevant laws on wikipedia).

            Frankly, I don’t even know what your problem is. If the ACA or anyone else wants to start producing some evidence – simple screenshots even – of Mills’s youtube channel without proper attribution, then we can start talking. Similarly, if anyone can produce some evidence that Mills’s youtube channel earned him money, that’s a good start. Otherwise, I am forced to (tentatively) conclude that the ACA is acting against the license provisions and acting in bad faith or is grossly negligent.

          3. AhmNee

            EL, by your own words, Steve was out of compliance on at least a few videos which made Russel’s email justified. By the terms of the CC license, Russel should have given Steve 30 days to come back into compliance before taking action. But that’s irrelevant because no action was actually taken. TAE did not flag Mr. Mills’ channel for copyright violation and the email from Russel only threatened to if Mr. Mills did not contact the ACA. Your claim of gross irresponsibility is ridiculous as is your assertion that Mr. Mills would have a case against the ACA. As Mr. Mills was out of compliance when TAE started trying to get a hold of him it only makes sense that their attempts to get a hold of him would grow more forceful as time went on.

            Because TAE materials were using the CC license, requests for changes to existing videos would have been non-legally binding. But the CC site recommends that these non-binding requests be considered. Because, and this is a point many seem to be missing, the only thing TAE and the ACA needed to do to “stop” any further reposting of videos was stop using the CC license for any future content. Mr. Mills channel may have been able to come back to compliance on the CC license but it definitely didn’t fall into the Fair Use doctrine. The letter from Russel didn’t ask for takedown of previous videos. Only mentioned future videos and the misunderstanding that Russel had on the CC license would have been irrelevant if TAE stopped using the CC license until they decided how they wanted to license the videos going forward. Something that Russel mentioned was in discussion in his OP.

          4. EnlightenmentLiberal

            @AhmNee
            I’m a little confused. You do agree that once released under the CC license, they remain forever released under the CC license, right? Thus, changing licenses applies only to future content that is released under the new license, more or less, right?

            My point remains: Using the occasional lack of proper attribution as an excuse to request takedowns of entire videos when he was willing to fix the attributions is entirely dishonest and immoral, or grossly negligence – and either way would land the ACA susceptible to a lawsuit.

          5. AhmNee

            Please show where there was a takedown request. It certainly wasn’t in Russel’s email.

            Occasional lack of attribution is still being out of compliance. There isn’t a gradient for being out of compliance. Now, Mr. Mills was indeed to be given 30 days to come back into compliance. But the fact remains no action was taken against him. There was the threat of action IF he didn’t contact them.

            While technically anyone is susceptible to a lawsuit for nearly anything at any time. Any lawsuit brought by someone who was out of compliance with the copyright during this entire incident would have no leg to stand on. What would the complaint be? “They made me follow the copyright requirements, the big meanies.”

          6. AhmNee

            And yes. I said this applies to future content multiple times. I thought I was very clear about that. Mills wasn’t told to take down what he had. He was told to not post any more videos UNLESS he replied to them.

  26. 26
    samuelclemens

    I love that totalitarianism came up in this conversation. Variation on Godwin’s law?

    1. 26.1
      Felipe

      You know, Godwin’s Law has always sounded to me like a really cleverly stealth way to say “you’re not allowed to say this”.

      1. jehk

        More like “you’re foolish for saying this”.

        1. Felipe

          The thing is, it’s an automatic response, a placeholder for an actual argument. I hate this “if you use this argument, you lose automatically” kind of thing, even on its silliest – kinda like saying you automatically lose the argument if you only have the Bible to back you up.True as it might be, it still deserves an explanation as to why it is invalid.

          1. samuelclemens

            I think when people start slinging around terms like totalitarianism with respect to a website, the conversation is automatically no longer productive. It reminds me of conspiracy theories. I only have so many minutes in my life.

          2. jacobfromlost

            Mark Twain is right. And I’m not sure it takes much explanation as to why websites are not like Hitler, Stalin, or totalitarianism. Except for the grammar Nazis. They are exactly like Nazis, except with grammar.

  27. 27
    dekomitri

    Hi Russel and folks.
    This is a list of bad reasons why the ACA is not comfortable with individuals posting entire episodes of AXP:

    “1. It gives the false impression that a particular channel is officially associated with The Atheist Experience…”

    I don’t agree with these priorities. You are making a choice to not have to delete some extra emails from idiots over reaching a wider audience.

    “2 This kind of distribution makes it harder to provide clarification on episode content…”

    You are wrong and unrealistic. A complete and labeled episode makes is much easier to find and attach clarifications. On the other hand the plethora of chopped up show segments makes it almost impossible to do so. For example a youtuber by the name of FFreeThinker has the email segment you mentioned under “Foolish Atheist (Part 4/5)” it’s only 8:29 long. ScienceVideos4’s segment is titled “Foolish Atheist part 4 5)” and it is only 8:30 long. Ironically, the episode blog post you linked too doesn’t have any clarification. In fact the blog post titled “Patrick Wants your opinion” still exists. While you are worried about content control of fan channels your own blog is telling people to keep contacting Patrick.

    “3 It dilutes the audience, making monetization a bigger challenge…”

    If it’s not a huge issue why bring it up? The ACA survives primarily through donations. Donations are obtained by reaching a wider audience. Fan channels allow you to reach a wider audience. Therefore shutting down Steve Mills was a poor financial decision.

    If you want your YouTube channel to be a primary source of all things AXP and reap the financial rewards all you have to do is make yours the best AXP channel on YouTube; not by alienating your biggest fans but by providing better content. All this time and effort spent attempting to control a fan channel could have been spent improving your own; a fan channel that, in my opinion, was far more organized, better labeled and updated than your own. So congratulations the AXP YT channel made it back to the top by throwing the guy above you off the ladder. At least…that’s how it looks.

    Hope my feedback helps. Cheers.

    - Dimitri

    1. 27.1
      Helena Handbaskit

      I appreciated this comment. Steve offers organized access on youtube with enabled content. I would never have heard of TAE. When I found Steve’s channel, I hadn’t yet even read God Is Not Great. I USED Steve’s link to TAE website AND donated a modest sum, but could not easily get at what I was starved for–other people’s full content (also, on an ipad it was often not possible to click the vids offered on the TAE site, whereas youtube always worked). Steve’s channel opened up a world I didn’t know existed, and now I have a youtube place with all my subscriptions that I started by clicking on the names of the ppl who were commenting and subbing to their channel. It does have value. It does further the atheist cause. And, he was in compliance. Perhaps it drives ppl to stay on youtube rather than go off youtube and into this blog site, but many ppl prefer to stay on youtube because of how easily it allows for formation of user chosen community. I would switch to TAE official youtube, but it does not offer the very thing that kept making me go back to Steve’s site–reading and discovering other ppl through the comments section.

      If TAE enabled comments on its youtube channel, I would go there. Perhaps it might consider enabling comments and writing in the description box that the comments are completely unmoderated.

      I understand the idea that TAE should have a right to display its content how it chooses to, but it chose that license and its terms, and Steve is in compliance. So, Steve’s channel is legal, despite that it displays its vids and comments and even its negative remarks in ways that TAE objects to.

  28. 28
    dekomitri

    Hey Russel and folks,

    With this third poins i’d like to point out that there is a failure to address the three common complaints in closing of your post.

    “1. Steve Mills is the channel I always use to watch new episodes. Without him, you would lose viewers.
    We post our new episodes in numerous formats… It is really not hard to get hold of new episodes.”

    This doesn’t eliminate the fact that you are losing viewers by taking down a fan channels. At times, it is hard to get a hold of new AXP episodes. UStream has been known to not upload new episodes for days, its far more glichy than YouTube and has fewer servers worldwide. The AXP YT channel is poorly maintained. Meanwhile, Steve Mills was uploading shows within an hour of airing that were labeled, cut for content, and sorted into playlists. He was single-handedly providing a top-notch service for months.

    “2. I hate Ustream and Blip, I only want to watch on YouTube, but you don’t keep your own YouTube channel up to date.
    I’m not terribly keen on the idea that no format but YouTube is acceptable for providing current episodes”
    .
    I’m sorry Russel but it doesn’t matter what you are keen on. Do you want AXP to be more accessible? If so, providing more platforms for viewing makes the show more accessible. Telling them, “tough, take what you got” doesn’t.

    At the same time you are well aware that maintaining a YT channel to the standard of Steve Mills is, under the current circumstances, impossible. Which means the ACA willingly lowered the bar for a portion of it’s audience.

    “3. Comments on your channel are disabled. This is censorship, and I only want to watch The Atheist Experience in a venue that is unmoderated.
    I’m aware that some people disagree with that policy, and prefer to have a “warts and all” conversation about the show. To those people, I recommend you find or create a message board that you’d like to use to discuss the show. It doesn’t have to be tied to a video. Linking is not that hard to do.”

    Once again Russel, it doesn’t matter what the ACA wants to do with its own channels/blogs. There are people who want to make un-moderated public remarks/discussions about AXP videos.

    Are you trying to tell these people, “hey, go find your own dark corner to piss in”?

    Are you implying the ACA would prefer to force its moderation practices on anyone using its content?

    I don’t know…but the fact remains that there are people who prefer a degree of separation from the AXP and FT Blogs. Shutting down an un-moderated fan channel takes that away from them.

    Hope this perspective helped. Cheers

    - Dimitri

    1. 28.1
      mary2

      Dimitri, people can have unmoderated discussion wherever they like on whatever subject they like. It is immoral of them to insist on having access to someone else’s intellectual property without their permission upon which to comment.

  29. 29
    Justin

    John Locoletti – “You stopped posting full episodes, and started posting entire episodes split into several pieces. We took that as a giant “fuck you — I’ll follow the letter of the request, not the spirit”.

    Here is the real reason TAE took the stance they did against Steve Mills. Had nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with how Steve Mills uploaded episodes.

    I’d love to see that initial e-mail from TAE to Steve Mills asking him to stop posting full episodes and see if they explain what they meant by that ie posting a full episode in one video or making sure you don’t have an entire episode on your channel. Then I’d like to know what they expected the cutoff on clips to be ie if my clips are made up of callers from the show how and there are five callers on that show how many callers am I allowed to upload before TAE says that’s too many segments from one show on your channel. I’m pretty sure no one has been awarded the million dollars from James Randi for reading minds over the internet..

    1. 29.1
      John Iacoletti

      Not to intrude on your dead horse beating campaign, but if you’re going to quote me, at least spell my name right!

      1. Justin

        That’s really all you have to say?

        Well I apologize for that even though you yourself don’t use proper capitalization in your own name….

        1. John Iacoletti

          What the hell are you talking about? Dude, that’s a capital “i”, not an “L”

          1. jacobfromlost

            lol

            falling out of my chair…

          2. Justin

            My mistake… Don’t know why I assumed it was supposed to be an L.

            See how easy it is to admit when you’re wrong… Take a lesson…

        2. mike

          LOL Justin, you just lost

          1. Justin

            You’re a moron!

      2. Justin

        And of the 5 responses I have put to you this is the one you respond to and only because of the spelling of your name?

        LOL

        Weak….

        1. John Iacoletti

          Yes, it’s all been said. You’re obviously mistaking volume for relevancy.

          1. Justin

            The response of an intellectually bankrupt mind…. *golf clap*

  30. 30
    David Campbell

    Just a quick question. Why cease and desist to Steve Mills when he was already up and running rather than partner with him, redirect the YouTube page to his, and let him continue with the blessings of TEA? Would have solved a few problems all at the same time. Martin Wagner is doing a great job, but I’m sure someone with his intelligence, drive, and ambition to help the cause could definitely found an alternate means of expressing his talents.

    1. 30.1
      Monocle Smile

      I think this one is fairly obvious. Steve Mills didn’t respond to several friendly messages and ended up blocking Jen Peeples. Then he threw up that rather passive-aggressive video. These are not signs of someone interested in cooperating, and he never asked for permission to use the license in the first place.

      I’m also unsure what makes you think Mills is intelligent or has drive/ambition. He may very well possess those characteristics, but cutting up videos and posting them on YouTube isn’t exactly brain surgery.

      The cyber world today is full of copyright infractions and outright fraud. Holding on to your product is important. I have three albums as a musician on iTunes. We just released the music for free recently, and that was our choice because we’ve all moved on. However, when we were getting income from our music, if someone decided to download and distribute without any kickbacks in traffic or money to us, I would probably wreck their shit legally because I put an awful lot of time, effort, and money into my product.

      1. Schlumbumbi

        @ Monocle Smile #30.1

        See, that’s the portion that doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Steve is passionate about putting TAE shows on youtube without ad revenue as quickly as he can – but he refuses to talk to TAE folks, even takes measurements so they can’t contact him ? If that is really the case, we’re not being told the entire story. And frankly, I don’t give a damn about peoples’ problems when they fail to communicate in a proper manner.

        (1) If TAE wants to make money through ad revenues, that’s their “birthright”, so to speak.

        Upload the videos to Youtube, maintain your channel and keep the comments open – and cash in magnitudes more money than you’d ever get from blip or ustream. Had TAE someone within their rows who’s dedicated to financial stuff, we wouldn’t even be having this “discussion”.

        (2) If you want to redirect conversation from YT to FTB ? Laughable. Forget it.

        People have chosen Youtube for a reason – it’s the ability to directly discuss matters with other viewers of the clips, without restrictions, like cowardly moderation policies or technical barriers.

        This petty framework here is in no position to compete with YT or tell YTers that they’re supposed to do things differently than anyone else.

        (3) Whining about mean Youtubers’ habits doesn’t get you any victim points.

        If you deliver quality content, YTers will show you love. And the paper.
        If you talk smack and thousands of bullsht detectors go off at once, YTers will kick you in the teeth.

        If you’re a neurotic and/or politically streamlined control freak, and can’t stand people saying things you don’t like – keep away from YT. That place is not for you. You’re too weak.

        Let’s see how this issue develops in the nearest future.

        Maybe it will be seen as just another instance of artificial drama sourcing from FTB, having no real life impact, or it will reduce TAE to what it was before its episodes were uploaded to YT – a local TV show with a 3 digit amount of viewers.

        1. Monocle Smile

          No one here is owed the airing of dirty laundry. I don’t get this need to bitch about free content…and not just viewing it, but the ability to comment on it as if that’s an entitlement.

          YouTube comments are pretty much the cesspool of the internet. It’s barely above 4chan. There are limitless numbers of trolls, bots, and generally stupid people with no grasp on reality. Self-moderation on YouTube just does not happen. It bothers me that so many here seem to have this high opinion of YouTube commenters. it’s mostly useless trash.

          You can call moderation “cowardly” all you want. It’s not, depending on the degree. Pruning is necessary to facilitate actual discussion. There are PLENTY of theists on the AXP blog who have been allowed to run rampant and say totally wrong things…even arrogant dicks like Eric Lounsbery and MRA lurkers as long as they don’t come out with anything TOO misogynistic. Trolls serve zero purpose and often appear in numbers. Just because someone types or speaks something doesn’t make it valuable.

          We’re also talking about an organization with a public image. The identities of the people involved are known. I have zero sympathy for anonymous cowards crying about “censorship” when they have little to offer and their garbage risks tarnishing the reputation of public figures for no reason. It’s really easy to talk tough behind the wall of anonymity when the other guy needs to watch his step. If you want to have totally unfiltered discussion, start or use another forum. Wait, that’s not convenient for your lazy ass? Too bad. That’s why it’s free.

          If you don’t like moderation, then leave. Stop watching and stop commenting. Do you really think you’ll be missed? This isn’t necessarily directed at you, Schlumbumbi. You do bring up a few interesting points. This is directed at people who feel the need to be given an HJ by providers of free things because they aren’t delivered in the most perfect manner ever.

          1. EnlightenmentLiberal

            It’s barely above 4chan.

            I expect better conversations on 4chan than in the youtube comment section.

          2. Schlumbumbi

            “Pruning is necessary to facilitate actual discussion”

            What is this ? A popular myth or a specious excuse for wanting to control the commentary?

            The established YT audience doesn’t give a flying fck about trolls, abrasive comments or personal catfights. Random noise occurs. It does not matter. If you think it does matter, stay away from anything YT as far as you possibly can.

            PS:
            YT random noise was always much shorter than lots of the tl;dr & superblah stuff on this blog network, so the “cleaning up” argument isn’t that convincing.
            We’ll have to see where the Google+ commenting system takes us in the future but up to this point in time, YT has produced better content and discussions than most, if not all, blogs here on FTB combined.

            PS2:
            If you explicitely invite a YT audience to come to your remote website, as TAE does, don’t start snivelling when they bring their habits with them. No surprises to be expected.

            PS3:
            You were stressing people saying “TOO misogynistic” things. Have you ever considered the possibility, that the things written on this network, are actually massively offensive to many people out there and provoke equally levelled replies ? In other words, what makes you think you can dish out as much as you like and cry “foul” whenever people start retaliating ?

            To me, some of the FTBloggers have written the most repulsive stuff I ever had to read on blogs, but neither did I start whinging about it, nor did I start threatening them and still, I wouldn’t blame anyone for having a lower threshold and much less patience with these keyboard warriors.

            And while it’s true that TAE folks usually don’t participate in these things (although sometimes they do (pointing at Glasser and Wagner)), it’s their voluntary association with FTB and casual references to these things, which trigger allergic reactions in people who had unpleasant run-ins with the holier-than-thou scumbags on the network.

            For our sense of entitlement, well, that might be true.

            After all, that which does not appear on YT, did not happen. In an age where upload bandwidth is broad and even cheapest devices can record HD video, merely getting your videos uploaded to youtube is not considered a praiseworthy effort anymore.

            However, I would totally understand if the folks @ TAE couldn’t be bothered to work overtime in order to prepare their TV show footage for YT, but in THAT case, they could’ve easily gotten someone like Steve Mills to help them out, probably completely for free.

            And all it would’ve taken to accomplish that, would’ve been a few mails by a socially competent person with a non confrontational approach. And I don’t think I’m revealing an unpleasant truth by saying Mr. Glasser isn’t precisely the go-to guy for that sort of thing. Now I’m not blind, I read the article and it stated a few strange things about the communication with Mills – but without any detailed information on the timeline of events, I refuse to make a judgement call.

        2. Muz

          Dude you talk like its still 2008. Hell even then YT was a random mess. This ‘tuber pride thing is weird as hell. Loads of channels edit comments and censor. I don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s somehow built into the system to be unfettered free expression in some Gilmore/Raymond fantasy (and the usual macho bullshit about heat and kitchens that goes along with it). It’s simply not true and never has been of any platform on the net, especially Youtube.
          Your conviction to your brand/tribe is admirable in a weird way, yet slightly warped and incomplete in its impression of the thing, as often results from such attachments.

          1. Schlumbumbi

            LOL, true. YT was always a mess. However, for several years now, it’s been the best social media platform to introduce various topics to a huge and lively audience. The code of conduct is clearly defined and if you try pulling off stunts on other people, you will get called out on it. That alone is worth a lot.

          2. Monocle Smile

            Don’t play dumb. The code of conduct isn’t enforced in the least. I’ve received ethnic slurs and even threats of bodily harm from people who USE MY REAL NAME AND LOCATION (neither of which I give out publicly or are even on my Google+ profile) without any action from YouTube or Google. It’s total anarchy, which is why I can’t indict official organizations for moderating or disabling comments.

      2. David Campbell

        P.1 Well, I guess that is the real question: what was the initial contact? Since we are not privy to the tone or nature of that first contact, we can’t really say. If it said “Dude, that’s my shit, take it down and thanks for asking, douche bag….” that’ s going to generate, from me a great big fuck you and an immediate look for any loophole I can find (which one was obviously there.) If the contact was “Hey bro, I want that traffic to go to my site, can you put in the attribution or take it down?”, then I’d say TAE has a legit bitch. So, until we see what that initial message was like, we should reserve judgement.

        P.2 What was the purpose of THAT comment? My thoughts about what MARTIN WAGNER was doing for the movement. Your comment is pure dickishness, unbecoming of someone bitching about the YT comments. I know there is hella hatred for Mills here, but some basic reading comprehension please.

        P.3 Strawn man. Contributes nothing toward answering the question.

        1. Monocle Smile

          I misread your comment. My bad.

          You’re right, we don’t know what the first message was like, but the ACA representatives are generally not dicks and Mills was clearly in violation of the license.

          The last part isn’t a straw man. It MAY be a red herring, but there are a ton of comments here getting worked up over copyright enforcement only to insist that they’re mad about something else.

          1. David Campbell

            Np bro, do it myself all the time: answer what you think you read… lol.

            My impression of everything ACA has done have been honorable, so I tend to agree with you. Just wanted the initial contact question thrown out there in case anyone really did know….

            Red herring! I am not that great at identifying all the different logical fallacies, but at least I’m getting better at spotting one in general! Lol

          2. Helena Handbaskit

            I notice you keep saying that Steve was in violation. I have read the license both from Steve’s links to it in his vids, and also directly from the link provided on TAE website (to make sure they were the same, and they are the same). I cannot see any violations. Can you explain how he is/was in violation?

          3. EnlightenmentLiberal

            and Mills was clearly in violation of the license.

            How so? Protip: Posting an unedited version of every TAE episode of every season onto his youtube channel is not in itself a violation of the license. In fact the license expressly allows exactly that.

            From what I can tell, most if not all of his videos linked to the ACA websites, and explained that the youtube channel was a fan channel, and linked to the license. AFAIK, that’s all he had to do to be in compliance. Well, and not make money, such as from ads.

          4. Steve Mills

            “and Mills was clearly in violation of the license”

            So did I need to put a creative commons link in there? I see there are many of their clips and full episodes out there that violate also.
            I always credited the ACA. Everytime.
            In the “about” section in every video, (maybe a couple of the earliest ones didn’t have this EXACT text) I posted this below.

            This is not the official channel but a fan channel.

            The Atheist Experience is a weekly, live, call in talk show discussing issues related to Atheism. The show is sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin, TX. The Atheist Experience TV program is now in its 15th year!

            For more info visit their websites at:
            http://www.atheist-experience.com/
            http://www.atheist-community.org/

            You can join the ACA at the following link:
            http://www.atheist-community.org/join/

            WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?

            The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
            The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit
            educational corporation to develop and support the atheist
            community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other
            organizations in pursuit of common goals.

            We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.

            VISIT THE ACA’S OFFICIAL WEB SITES

            http://www.atheist-community.org (The Atheist Community of Austin)
            http://www.atheist-experience.com (The Atheist Experience TV Show)

            More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
            http://www.atheist-experience.com/arc

            DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
            http://www.atheist-community.org/prod

            MUSIC CREDITS

            Theme song: “Listen to Reason,” written and performed by Bryan Steeksma.
            http://www.youtube.com/bryansteeksma
            http://www.myspace.com/bryansteeksma

      3. EnlightenmentLiberal

        and he never asked for permission to use the license in the first place.

        That’s not how it works.

        http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/

        The content of The Atheist Experience, including video and audio downloads and DVDs may be freely copied subject to the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 license. The license enables free use of The Atheist Experience content for those not attempting to profit from the work. Please credit the Atheist Community of Austin as the producer of the work when you use it.

        He doesn’t have to ask for permission. Permission was already granted. The ACA dun fucked up.

        1. Monocle Smile

          …unless Steve Mills didn’t properly follow the guidelines of the Creative Commons license. Free license or not, there ARE rules. I’m also unsure of Mills’ monetization settings. There are a couple of people who claim he did in fact properly follow the license guidelines, though there are evidently no screenshots to back this up, and I don’t recall seeing the mention of the license in any of the descriptions myself. Mills took down his videos, so it’s not like anyone can confirm, but the fact that he took them down could be construed as an admission. Or he just didn’t want to fight it.

          1. Helena Handbaskit

            I watched Steve’s channel and found the TAE website (and donated to it) and the license all from Steve’s channel. I also found this blog that way several days ago (more like last week, before Russell had posted anything about it) but had some trouble figuring out how to comment to it, and my comments are still not up (they are “awaiting moderation” which I have never heard of before). I know you can’t just take my comments on faith, but if it holds any weight to you at all, I really did experience it that way, and he did post the links required. He was not out of compliance in any way that I can discern. Please enlighten me if I am mistaken, as I am trying to gather as much information as I can. I know you understand that the reason there are no screenshots is because no one who was using Steve’s channel could have expected accusations of noncompliance. Also, do you know if youtube shut down his vids or if he took them down?

          2. Monocle Smile

            Firstly, I truly appreciate your approach to this matter.

            I can say that it’s possible that the links were up in some videos, but not others…or that the transition from the full episodes to the clipped and playlisted versions caused something to be lost.

            Steve Mills himself took down the videos, as far as anyone can tell. There’s usually an active link and a message of disability if YouTube takes action, which I’ve experienced in the past. If Mills was truly in compliance, I don’t know why he didn’t take a screenshot himself and/or respond that it was entirely legal for him to post episodes. Again, the communication history and subsequent actions are not indicative of actual compliance.

            As for why TAE didn’t partner with Mills, there appears to be a history here…and as someone who has dealt with copyright and distribution of licensed media as a musician, I can understand completely the reluctance to bring in a YouTube stranger. The world, and especially the internet world, is not actually full of well-intentioned and responsible people, in my experience.

          3. EnlightenmentLiberal

            @ Monocle Smile

            Again, I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that Russell Glasser obviously has no clue about any of this, judging from his blog post at the top of this page. If he thinks those 3 things are legitimate legal or moral reasons to ask Mills to stop posting, then he’s grossly ignorant. Those 3 things do not reference anything about being in violation of the license reqs. Instead, those 3 things read as though Mr. Glasser has no clue about what the license does at all, and is operating as though he actually could prevent someone like me from uploading all of the youtube vidoes myself to my own fan channel. Protip: He cannot.

            Furthermore, there is no moral reason either. I’m sorry – as soon as you “give away” your work, as the ACA already has via the creative commons license, then you lose any right to bitch when people do exactly what the license allows.

            I’m responding to the arguments made in Mr. Glasser’s blog post at the top of this page, not to hypotheticals made by others.

          4. EnlightenmentLiberal

            Hmm. ok, Mr. Glasser also did make the argument that Mills did not “use the creative commons license” – whatever that might mean, and that he did not properly link back to the ACA websites, which is a legitimate reason to complain. However, as far as I can tell, he did properly link back for most videos, and was willing to fix such things promptly on request.

            Instead, as far as I can tell, this is mostly an argument between someone who doesn’t understand what a “free to share” license is and thinks he can prevent sharing for free (Mr. Glasser), and someone who does understand (Mills).

          5. Raymond

            Monocle Smile

            I’m kinda with you on this one. All politics aside, Steve Mills did not act like someone who was doing what he needed to. Avoiding communications, blocking the ACA president, and taking down his site instead of providing evidence that he was fully in compliance are not the actions of an innocent man. To be quite honest, his actions seem quite shady. Let’s face it. If Steve had just kept regular correspondence with the ACA, this would not have escalated at all. It seems that the ACA acted more out of spite than anything, but something funny was going on with Steve’s site. Why would he just take it down without a fight like that? Why wouldn’t he just prove that he was compliant? It’s like the old saying “honest people have nothing to fear from the search for truth.” Maybe Steve was somewhat less than honest in his dealings the ACA.

          6. EnlightenmentLiberal

            @Raymond

            It’s like the old saying “honest people have nothing to fear from the search for truth.” Maybe Steve was somewhat less than honest in his dealings the ACA.

            Only someone young or hopelessly naive could say something so stupid. You need to learn some basic limited government doctrine, how it’s the basis of the US constitution, and why it’s a good idea. History and civics classes would be a good start. Reading “Dispatches From The Culture Wars” is another good way. For example, the two recent cases in the US where the police tortured and anally raped two guys in two completely separate events – raped repeatedly – and the police will probably not even be charged. Stuff like this is why we have a limited powers government, and why idiocy like yours leads to a police state and tyranny.

            IMHO, Steve Mills likely feels that it’s no longer worth the effort. He feels slightly betrayed by the ACA, and probably holds them in less esteem. Due to his negative feelings, he’s probably like “fuck it”, took down the videos to avoid any future hassle and drama, and is moving on with his life.

            [...] taking down his site instead of providing evidence that he was fully in compliance are not the actions of an innocent man.

            That’s not the way our legal system works, dipshit. Ever heard of the thing “innocent until proven guilty”? (Yes yes, this copyright violation would be a civil offense, not criminal, so that doesn’t fully apply. However, it’s the Aesop of the story which counts. Hell, even in civil cases the burden is on the plaintiff to at least put forward something, and there is no sole onus on the defendant to demonstrate his innocence. )

            Is there a way to determine if he was making money off youtube ads? For the rest of the requirements, whether he was in compliance or not is all a matter of public domain. The ACA could just visit the youtube channel to find out. His cooperation is not needed at all. It is obscene that you think it’s his responsibility to provide documented evidence that he is in compliance with the license.

            For example, I bet you’re using a cable modem or DSL modem or similar right now, and I bet that modem is probably running Linux or some derivative. What if Linus Torvald right now demanded evidence from you showing that you are in compliance with the GNU license for the Linux running on your modem? If this happened to me, I would be a little bewildered at first. I would politely refuse. If Linus continued to push the issue, then I’d tell him to shove it and block communication from him. This all seems oddly familiar … (to Steve Mills’s purported behavior).

          7. Raymond

            @EnlightenmentLiberal

            Woa. Calm down. No need for insults here. Not a thing I said has the slightest thing to do with copyright law. I thought that was covered in the “politics aside” part of my comment. I was simply bringing up something that it seems people have been glossing over, that this need not have escalated if Steve had been willing to communicate. It was intended to be a psychological and social comment on human behavior in this situation. To be quite honest, I couldn’t care less about the legality of the situation. That is for people interested in law. It’s clear that you are extremely invested in it, though; so I won’t take your tirade personally. In fact I will humbly withdraw from this entire conversation. In the future, though, a modicum of decorum would be nice; even in an online blog.

          8. Steve Mills

            “that this need not have escalated if Steve had been willing to communicate.”

            Hello all,
            This is Steve. I have been reading some of these posts and I feel that a few of you commenters should be embarrassed for the knee jerk emotional rhetoric that has passed for discussion here. Are the few of you folks truly freethinkers? Why all the accusations that I was avoiding and blocking the people that I really like and enjoyed their show? Isn’t evidence required to believe or take a hard side on something?
            So who REALLY has the motivation to make that claim? It doesn’t affect me that they don’t want the extra exposure. I don’t have a dog in the fight. I never made a cent on their videos and they desire as much exposure as possible. I wanted them to have as much exposure as possible too. I don’t benefit in any way from having a youtube channel. I can watch all the videos I please without having an account. I just have a youtube channel like anyone else and anyone can can open one up. They’re a dime a dozen and free. Who cares?

            When I insist I had NO CONTACT with TAE in any way of form and there is no history of email communications, I’m telling the truth. If I was ignoring them why would I have responded to and complied with the message that they were able to send me on the 12th? If I was ignoring emails don’t cha think I would have ignored that one too?
            6 months ago I received an email in my youtube inbox advising me to stop uploading full episodes. I also complied. After that I heard from no one. Ever. No one was blocked or ignored. So the point is that Russells email communication to me on the 12th was businesslike, to the point, but in my opinion, rude. That’s my opinion and obviously, many others as well. Why be so hard-lined on opinions, speculations and gray areas etc…? Peace

          9. EnlightenmentLiberal

            @Raymond
            There is every need for those insults when someone says something so outrageous and offensive and dangerous to our modern democracy. Sorry. If you say something that dangerous and stupid, I’m going to call you on it, and I will insult those specific beliefs in the process, and possibly you too because it’s difficult to distinguish between the two except with extreme care.

          10. Raymond

            Wow. Just . . . Wow. **shakes head in disbelief** Are you even paying attention to yourself? You are going crazy. I expressed a psycho-social opinion, and all of a sudden democracy itself is in trouble? You really need to calm down.

          11. EnlightenmentLiberal

            I never said your individual opinions alone would significantly affect democracy. That opinion held in aggregate is dangerous to society.

          12. AhmNee

            So, lets ask the obvious question then, Steve. Did you, at any point, attempt to get a hold of the ACA before Russel’s email?

            Did you get a hold of them after Russel’s email but before you posted the video of Russel’s email?

            See, I’m curious why it appears your reaction to the email was “That was rude. I want everyone to know how mean they are to me.”

            And not. “Why are they upset with me? I guess I’d better contact them and get this cleared up.”

          13. Steve Mills

            @ AhmNee
            ““That was rude. I want everyone to know how mean they are to me.””

            Why are those sentences in quotes?
            I never wrote that. That is deceiving and dishonest of you.
            That only infers that you are more on the side of dishonesty rather than truth.
            You are likely more interested in the sport of argument than truthful discussion.
            I have 3 other posts on this blog which explains my position thoroughly without having to repeat myself ad nauseam. Please read or reread those posts. Thanks

          14. AhmNee

            That’s a rather blatant dodge of the question, Steve. Even if you really believe that was meant as a direct quote, which it wasn’t, dodging the question by taking issue with my punctuation and then claiming you have any insight to my state of mind is at least as deceiving and dishonest, if not more so.

            So, my quotes would have been used in the unusual fashion of distancing myself from the terminology. I was describing your reaction to this situation which has been, in my opinion, “That was rude. I want everyone to know how mean they are to me.” I also quoted what I thought the more reasonable reaction would have been. Did you take that as a direct quote, too?

            -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark
            -Under – Signaling unusual usage

            “People also use quotation marks in this way to distance the writer from the terminology in question so as not to be associated with it, for example to indicate that a quoted word is not official terminology, or that a quoted phrase presupposes things that the author does not necessarily agree with; or to indicate special terminology that should be identified for accuracy’s sake as someone else’s terminology, as when a term (particularly a controversial term) pre-dates the writer or represents the views of someone else, perhaps without judgement (contrast this neutrally-distancing quoting to the negative use of scare quotes).”

            Now, perhaps it could also be considered paraphrasing which wouldn’t use quotes but I see it as a gray area and used the quotes as I would have used finger quotes had we been speaking face to face.

            So, if you would excuse our misunderstanding on punctuation and answer the direct question about when you contacted the ACA because that’s not a position and it isn’t addressed above. I think you’ve been dishonest about your communication with the ACA, not because you have received all of their attempts to contact you, but about your willingness to communicate with them once you did actually receive communications with them. I could be wrong because you haven’t been very specific about what you have and haven’t actually spoken to them about.

            I think you got the letter asking you not to post full videos and you broke them up without contacting the ACA. Then you got Russel’s letter and posted it to Youtube, still having never spoken to anyone at the ACA. And only attempted to once you had riled up your ‘fanbase’ and created this entire shitstorm.

            That’s my impression. I could be wrong. Thus why I’m asking.

          15. Steve Mills

            Now it’s clearly apparent that you prefer to argue over gray areas, what could have been, what should have been etc..
            My post on this blog clearly explains that I was contacted, I responded and adhered to their requests the ONLY 2 times that they contacted me. Reread that, as in BOTH TIMES.
            I had no legal or moral obligation to contact them otherwise.
            Go re-read my other posts. Go argue with someone else. Don’t waste my time.

          16. AhmNee

            Hey, Steve.

            I’m going to take a step back, a deep breath and apologize. I’ve been arguing that this was a misunderstanding that’s been blown out of proportion and I do realize in defending that view I may have gotten a little combative. So perhaps you have a point about me getting into the sport of the argument. But I do assure you that I’ve been trying to argue to what was known and attempting not to speculate. Though my interpretation of your reaction may ride the line.

            I do understand how you could have seen the letter from Russel as rude. My kneejerk reaction could very well have been the same if I were in your shoes. It certainly uses forceful language but if you trim that away the message wasn’t “stop using our stuff”. It was “Contact us”. Well, “Contact us or else”.

            It’s my impression that this whole cluster could have been avoided if both parties had been in communication with each other. You didn’t get the messages they were trying to get to you and you don’t know why. I can’t say for certain the attempts were made but that’s really immaterial. Once they got a hold of you, you guys needed to talk. Because the worst case scenario was that further materials from TAE would be under a standard non-CC license and NO ONE would have the rights to repost it outside of fair use.

            I think that would be unfortunate.

          17. AhmNee

            Steve, respectfully, your post doesn’t say you responded to both. It says you complied with both. That’s not the same thing.

            “When I insist I had NO CONTACT with TAE in any way of form and there is no history of email communications, I’m telling the truth. If I was ignoring them why would I have responded to and complied with the message that they were able to send me on the 12th? If I was ignoring emails don’t cha think I would have ignored that one too?
            6 months ago I received an email in my youtube inbox advising me to stop uploading full episodes. I also complied. After that I heard from no one. Ever. No one was blocked or ignored. So the point is that Russells email communication to me on the 12th was businesslike, to the point, but in my opinion, rude. That’s my opinion and obviously, many others as well. Why be so hard-lined on opinions, speculations and gray areas etc…? Peace”

          18. Steve Mills

            Yes, I did respond to both youtube emails (in May and in Nov) indicating I was complying to their wishes.
            Hope I clarified that now.

            All the best, Steve

        2. EnlightenmentLiberal

          @Monocle Smile
          I’m not arguing about whether he didn’t properly follow the attribution reqs of the license. I’m merely noting that your argument is bullshit, and at this point dishonest or willfully ignorant. No one has to ask for permission to reproduce their works wholesale. The ACA has already granted permission for everyone to do so, for whatever reasons, with the exception that one may not gain profit from the reproduction.

          It seems that the ACA is too stupid to understand this, which is quite distressing. I would have hoped that someone there would be passingly familiar with contract law, copyleft licenses in general, and could read a contract text. That or they’re acting dishonestly. I hope it’s the stupid. Stupid is better than dishonesty.

      4. Steve Mills

        Seems you enjoy spreading false information. How do you know?
        Jen Peeples was never blocked and none of the ACA were ever blocked. No friendly messages were ever received.

        “I think this one is fairly obvious. Steve Mills didn’t respond to several friendly messages and ended up blocking Jen Peeples”

        1. Muz

          Steve has appeared. Hoorah.

          It’s quite possible you’ve been hard done by in all this, but it could be completely by mistake.
          You seem like a terse, understated sort. It’d be better to tell your side of it in some detail now though.

          It seems like the ACA sent several messages and when no reply or action seemed to occur they escalated to a copyright claim. If no messages were received and/or action was taken but missed we can probably sort the whole thing out.

          1. Steve Mills

            Hi, I posted a response a few posts up from this.
            Cheers, Steve

          2. Muz

            Cheers

            Yeah it all sounds pretty unfortunate. Hope the fences get mended.

    2. 30.2
      Helena Handbaskit

      I agree! Why not partner with him?

      1. AhmNee

        Helena, if I like and repost things you post to your Facebook page, would you give me your account name and password so I can post things on your account?

        That’s essentially what you’re asking TAE to consider.

        1. Tina Keb

          @ AhmNee
          “Helena, if I like and repost things you post to your Facebook page, would you give me your account name and password so I can post things on your account?

          That’s essentially what you’re asking TAE to consider.”

          Well if the main goal of the Facebook account is to spread a message and I find a person that can do a better job than me then it would make total sense to partner. Steve has provided a service that TAE has not.

  31. 31
    Felipe

    I have an enormous amount of respect for what the ACA folks have accomplished and for the free educational service they provide every week, but I feel their attitude towards fan comments and reaction in general has been a little questionable (specially after the change to FTB) – the general feeling is that they decide what kind of comments are acceptable, and screw dissent, which has even affected, as I see it, the way hosts interact with callers on the show (it seems like every call is doomed to end in “hey, Caller? You’re done” nowadays).

    Which is entirely their prerogative, of course. I take no issue with the increasingly greater level of moderation displayed in the blog, for example; it’s their content. But it does leave the impression that dissent is undesirable, and also makes their skin look thinner and thinner as time goes by (which seems to be a trend at FTB).

    This probably won’t stop me from consuming content produced by the ACA, but it should be noted that The Atheist Experience is emblematic to the current secular movement (at least as it seems from this corner of the Internet), and incidents like this (and others in the past) seem to indicate the ACA isn’t necessarily interested in creating the free community I’d like to be involved in.

    1. 31.1
      Muz

      Where do you see increasing levels of moderation on the blog? And as compared to what? The old blog? That got censored too.

      I’d be intrigued to hear about it. You can call me the frog in the boiling water if you like, but the efforts of some to create this “FTB meanies!” meme has been very successful and swallowed by many without evidence, or highly selective evidence (proving to me that Fox News’ methods can work just as well among skeptics as it can paranoid right wing religious retirees).
      Yeah you will get a rough time on a couple of blogs around here if you say the wrong thing (and in the case of people like Greta Cristina and PZ Myers this has always been true, if in different ways). Those who accuse tribalism and groupthink of others are not terribly critical of whether they are doing the same thing themselves, I find.

      1. Schlumbumbi

        May I ? Leaving my own experiences aside, the following has been confirmed (some sites have PM functions :-)) to have been used by PZ, Carrier, Bunsen and the Pumuckl . (Hell, Carrier even bragged about resorting to such tactics when he was giving a conference talk) —>

        If you write something they don’t approve of, they will first reply to you publicly, asking you questions or asking you to clarify on what you wrote. Sounds like they’re interested in a discussion ? Right ? Wrong.
        What they won’t write publicly, is that you have been set to ‘moderated’ and if you reply to their request, your reply will never be authorised for public display, no matter how much time you spent in writing it or how much effort you put in explaining your position.

        The result – you waste your time, and to the other comment readers, it looks as if you were the one who’s dodging inconvenient questions. In reality, they are the ones who’re actively manipulating their audience and stifling the discussion.

        Think of that what you will, but one thing is clear:
        If your goal is to reach out to a non-captive audience and to build a serious reputation for yourself, you cannot possibly afford to participate in such conduct. The backlash against such tinpot despotism is well deserved.

        1. EnlightenmentLiberal

          Got a specific example you can share?

          I can agree in small part, but only in small part. I have noticed that regulars on Pharyngula itself can be quite unreasonable and the entire thing is a huge echo chamber, and that’s why I largely avoid Pharyngula’s comment sections. Still, they didn’t “ban” my ass (although they were quite rude and quite unreasonable). I fully expect that most of the examples you can cite are about idiots being completely idiotic, posting the same idiotic misogynistic trite again and again.

          1. Schlumbumbi

            @EnlightenmentLiberal Sorry, didn’t mean to overlook your question.

            Well, 2 problems:

            (1) I could share details with you if there existed a protected PM function on this system. There is none. As it is known of several FTBloggers that they try to gather personal information about dissenters, I will not post anything here that creates visible connections between me, other comments or other commenters. FTB is a notoriously unsafe environment.

            (2) As soon as you’re set on a “silent ban”, submitting a reply will only show you something along the lines of “Awaiting moderation”. That’s it. The content of the posts will not even be visible to you, even though you’re the author. After a week or so, the obscured posts then vanish alltogether. Auto-pruning comes to mind.

            I know such rather abstract descriptions won’t give any outsider, any non-impacted person, a proper insight on the resentments so many people have against FTB, but it should become increasingly clear that this is not a simple “I don’t like what they say” situation.

          2. Monocle Smile

            Unsafe? In what way? What real-life calamities have occurred do to happenings on FTB?

            Logging your IP address is not “collecting personal information” and “trolls” are not the same as “dissenters.” That all being said, if you actually have solid evidence of what you claim, I’d be fully interested in learning more and identifying which bloggers are responsible so I can refrain from providing traffic to their blogs.

            The PM thing would be very nice, I concur. This is actual constructive criticism that one could probably email to PZ Myers.

        2. Monocle Smile

          “tinpot despotism?”
          Some of you folks need to travel a bit. Maybe experience what despotism ACTUALLY entails. Hint: it has nothing to do with your whiny ass on a free internet forum. if you don’t like the rules, NO ONE WILL CARE if you fuck off and never post again. You’re not being forced to post comments in a moderated forum.

          1. Felipe

            Yay! Let’s have an open and inclusive community!

          2. Schlumbumbi

            Certainly not. He’s in charge of the sandbox and everyone else needs to get out. Mimimi ^^

          3. Muz

            Felipe; you’ve come back and you’ve not answered my questions.

        3. Muz

          LOL wut? Hax? Are you saying you’ve broken into the back channel Schlumbumbi, or know someone who has? Well that’s interesting.

          Even with that information this all sounds terribly lame as dastardly conspiracies go. I’m not sure what sort of smoking gun this is supposed to be, but it’s up there with climategate in damp squib limpness.
          That’s if I can understand what it’s all about or why it’s even an issue. It sounds like you’ve mashed several things together and called it icecream though and I’m not terribly sure what picture you’re trying to paint.

          Yeah I think Richard Carrier does use comment approval sometimes. Which means comments or unapproved users comments wait in moderation until he goes through and checks them manually. I don’t know why that’s a thing of any note. That’s been a feature of blogs since before they were called blogs. Most of the others on the network don’t do it that way because it’s a pain the arse.
          Used to happen to me on Phil Plait’s blog all the time. Whoopdedoo.

          I have no doubt that FTB bloggers discuss problem commenters in private. This should shock no one. And if there weren’t a private messaging system in the blog itself they might use, y’know, email or something. The idea that there’s a master list of them doesn’t really pan out in my experience. You can still see people banned on Pharyngula commenting on other blogs and vice versa all the time.
          If you’re banned on Pharyngula you know it and it’s done with great ceremony usually. Greta Cristina bans people constantly and always has and you know it when it happens. So too with most of the other big name ban-ers. But they all do it slightly differently.

          So the story is.. what? At some point someone commented on someone’s blog, but was banned or blocked and didn’t actually know it at the time that their posts weren’t showing publicly.
          Or later you mentioned that maybe it did even show them that their posts were being moderated (like most blogs since forever).

          Forgive me if I don’t feel like tipping the tea in the harbor. Really, is that it? Losing all your words sounds like an average week for me with net hiccups and, y’know, just about every comment system in the world being heavily moderated (far more so than FTB in the wildest dreams of its detractors btw)
          It all sounds like some game kids play of spies or the resistance, trying to get the word out and bring down the establishment. (only it’s a fairly boring atheist blog network getting tired of anti-feminists). If only the world were that exciting.

  32. 32
    Isaac

    I agree with the decisions that TAE has taken against this Steve Mills guy. That being said, it should be noted that while mp3′s and ogg’s of the audio of the show are easy to find, watching video clips of the show requires that one installs the particularly harmful piece of proprietary plugin known as Adobe Flash. With youtube, it is pretty easy to extract the video clips into a format that can be viewed easily using an open source video player. However, I doubt this would work for ustream or bliptv. It would be nice if in addition to the audio clips being uploaded to the archives, the video files were as well.

  33. 33
    Sir Real

    My only comment is that I did enjoy watching the show on youtube, however I will respect TAE because it is after all their show.

    1. 33.1
      samuelclemens

      I couldn’t agree more. Personal politics aside, the show is created by the ACA and they can do whatever the hell they want with it. If I value the content, I will continue watching. If someone gets a burr up their butt about the politics of this situation, perhaps they should consider not watching the show and moving to some blog to cry about it.

      1. samuelclemens

  34. 34
    Klebbster

    My Jesus we have too many options nowadays. Just watch/listen to the show, and enjoy being godless. Of course I would not say that this advice is better than any other advice…but TAE is the creator of the content, after all.

  35. 35
    Sir Real

    I would like to make a suggestion. How about we (as in all of us atheists) agree to disagree and start writting about what is most important to atheists like myself. This whole entire subject matter is getting old, redundant, and vapid. Face the truth, accept the truth and RESPECT the truth for what it is so that we as atheists can move on.

    1. 35.1
      J M

      I can understand the interest in moving on from the theist/atheist dichotomy. But human life is going to involve theistic, religious, and related lines of reasoning and beliefs for a while. The theism/atheism dichotomy only matters after a theistic proposition is made or implied. If one is only concerned with interactions that do not imply such propositions, then people could focus on subjects like ethics, science, politics and humanism in more detail. But this show is about addressing the large population of the Earth that is theistic.

      “How about we (as in all of us atheists) agree to disagree…”

      Attempting to avoid discussion on topics that can be considered relatively small doesn’t usually benefit anyone’s self-correction. There are many issues that could be considered “relatively small” when it is being related to something general that one is focused on. From a non-believer’s perspective, it can be easy to lack consideration for the reasoning that keeps a believer convinced. Are you an atheist or an atheist+”psychiatrist.” ;) The show is more about the latter, the former can just move on.

  36. 36
    Jorph

    I did watch the show on the Steve Mills channel, for 1 reason: He split up the episode by call. Super great when you want to skip over calls/topics you aren’t interested in. If it’s not too much work, and if YT fixes time-stamps anytime soon, it’d be great if Martin or whoever added the call time-stamps to the description.

  37. 37
    Danny/wwjudasdo

    I also used to berate those who disabled comments on youtube, but I can see the difference and usefulness right here on this blog. In a way I will miss the pervasive trolling perpetrated on atheists and Christians alike in the YT comment field. Trying to figure out if I was talking to a Christian or being trolled was half of the fun! Thanks again to Russel and all at TAE for their efforts on behalf of atheism.

  38. 38
    Sajan Parikh

    I quickly put this site together for those that may prefer torrents. Have decent bandwidth on a proper torrent server in Florida.

    http://aearchive.com/

    If the folks at AE have an issue with this let me know.

  1. 39
    Open thread on episode #841 » The Atheist Experience

    […] explain ourselves, we fucking have, asshole, at length, and in English. It’s right there in Number 3 on this list, and if you’re too lazy and stupid to read the very blog you’re posting your petulant […]

  2. 40
    Copyright change for The Atheist Experience » The Atheist Experience

    […] Last month I posted about some concerns over the duplication of episodes of The Atheist Experience. As I mentioned in that post, up until now we have been using the license Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0. This has effectively allowed various channels on YouTube to become unofficial hosts of new shows, in their entirety, every week. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>