Check the Downloaded Program Files folder for anything you do not recognize. This is where many rogue BHOs (Browser Helper Objects) reside due to "click-by" installations (ie, you hit a site and, without warning, they install a malicious plugin for IE). Since it happens on R'osity, it must be able to know exactly which site you are at in order to post the links.

"I learned a lesson early in life that if you don't have something good to say about someone/something, it's better to say nothing at all. The coordinated, disruptive posts on this site by you and your staff are numerous."

Nothing like contradicting yourself within the confines of two sentences.

"I don't suppose anyone here has had a dream and then had someone smash all over the top of it."

That, as sad as it may seem, is the definition of life - at least for the majority of the population. I do not know too many people myself who have had all of their dreams answered. Even when they are, it is not always in the manner you would like them to be. You should feel lucky that one of your dreams has been fulfilled; some people never get that far.

However, there are practical things to consider as well. There is no sense in trading reality for a pipe dream, either.

I do not think anyone is trying to quash the Magazine idea, just point out things that may not have been seen in the backrooms where it was discused.

All too often, a voice of dissent is seen as being destructive rather than constructive. As long as that perception pervades these forums, nothing of value will come out of these types of discussions. Someone has to ask the hard questions, and someone has to answer them. Would you rather that the questions were not asked until R'osity found themselves in an adverse situation where they were forced to answer them?

Constructive feedback comes in many forms, not just blindly kissing up to an idea and supporting it 110% without considering all of the possibilities. If used correctly, both positive and negative feedback can bring about the changes that are needed and result in a stronger Magazine.

By law, R'osity has to disclose all costs and conditions of the transaction before entering into one - or allow subscribers to back out after finding out without penalty. Therefore, I imagine this policy will be placed somewhere the Members can see it before they decide to subscribe; just in case they do not want to agree to the terms of the transaction.

I imagine they are going to alienate themselves from any number of subscribers and/or authors if they start putting ridiculous conditions on the subscription; that is, if the subscribers/authors choose to even read the agreement - which most do not.

How many times have we seen full article posts here from other web sites? And R'osity thinks that they will have better success at averting it? Fair Use is Fair Use, there is no way around it.

"The copyright concerns expressed regarding reproduction of content will be covered by our submission and subscriber agreements that incorporate our copyright policy and US Copyright Law."

Considering that R'osity's stance on many Copyright issues in the past has been - to be kind - blatantly incorrect; I would very much like to see this "Submission and Subscriber Agreement".

This is also the first time I have ever seen a subscriber have to agree to anything other than paying the subscription fees on time for the length of the subscription.

Anyone else sense some foreboding breach of rights issues approaching?

"The spirit of this provision of the law was to allow limited distribution and sharing of information not wide-spread distribution as would be done if a copyrighted article from the 'magazine' was posted by a member on a forum available to several hundred thousand members."

Copyright Law - the governing law - does not stipulate any given quantity and, therefore, I presume you are incorrect. The only cases I have seen involved copying and using a substantial portion of the publication - of which, one tutorial would not be considered substantial.

If it is a learning/teaching session on a site that may have "several hundred thousand [listed, not active] members" which - at any given point in time - less than 2,000 (1%) are online, and an even smaller fraction visit the forums in general, with an even smaller fraction participating in that particular thread, I am sure that you can see that the "several hundred thousand members" becomes a moot - if even existent - point.

The "numbers game" is always played here and hardly factors into anything from a practical standpoint. Just think of how many news/review sites there are, their audience, and you will see that the scenario you presented is extremely far-fetched.

"Once a contract is agreed to, even the author of the article would would be hard pressed to show his publishing the article on such a forum constituted fair use..."

Not so. The author-publisher relationship does not preclude nor interfere with the subcriber-publisher relationship. The Federal (remember that word, it is important) rights of Fair Use apply to everyone (that word is important, too).

More likely, R'osity will have a hard time proving it was not Fair Use; since the whole purpose of a tutorial is to tutor (ie, teach) a subject. The most R'osity could hope for is using such a stipulation against future publication (ie, if you make your material available, we will not publish your tutorials again). Here again, an author would be daft to accept such terms and R'osity would be jeopardizing the content they rely upon for the Magazine to be successful if they did press the issue; so R'osity would lose either way.

"Bottom line, - any detailed copyright law information will need to be answered by JenyK our expert in that field."

Then I await JenyK's involvement.

"All artists sign a contract [publishing agreement] with Renderosity concerning their article that will be published in the Magazine. This contract is sent along with the invitation to submit a story. The contract is written in very clear and concise lanuage so that the writer knows what their article will be used for, how long it will be used, and when full rights to the article will revert back to the author."

This is all well and good from an author perspective, although I would think that adding restrictions that may curtail the author's ability to market their copyright material would be a deterrent vs being an incentive to give to R'osity for free; especially when the publication is virtual now and not physical - which is better to build one's portfolio with.

The Publishing Agreement does not extend to subscribers and, therefore, would be inadequate to protect R'osity against Fair Use by subscribers. Likewise, the author would be considered a subscriber if using material directly from the published Magazine and would be presumably covered by Fair Use in that perspective, as well. Whereas this, too, is a copyright-related issue, I will await JenyK's participation.

"If he was just giving helpful advise in his own words, and not quoting the whole article - No - it would not be a violation of contract, and Yes it would be allowed."

As happens a lot in the technical sector, much of a technical article could be simple instuctions that you cannot change the wording of due to the nature of the application. Would these excerpts be allowed, along with different wording, if necessary, to flush the idea out more?

It seems to me that if the author is providing content for the magazine for free, there should be no restrictions on usage to the author; except maybe in the case of competing sites. This brings into question whether being "published" is adequate compensation for the Magazine to even request that the author refrain from using any portion of the article for any length of time. In essence, the author would be allowing the Magazine first publication rights, and nothing more; except maybe reprint or other rights as deemed necessary.

Also, eductional usage is a legit reason for Fair Use. If you are teaching someone how to do something, this clearly is an acceptable Fair Use practice.

US Copyriught Law Section 107:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Whereas this is permissable under the law, how can R'osity restrict rights granted by the Federal Government? BTW, Fair Use does not only apply to the copyright holder, but anyone using copyrighted works.

I have to agree with hmatienzo, dee-marie. It is a pleasure to see someone discuss an issue in an adult manner; despite the tenacity of the questions brought forth.

If you are at liberty to discuss it, some of the hows and whats have been addressed, but I have not seen anything touching upon the whys. Nor have I seen a reason given why R'osity could not allow the first edition to be seen by all vs a few. IMHO, that, above all else, would be your most successful marketing tool in garnering support for a paid subscription.

You should contact Curious Labs for a replacement.

IMHO, an eZine or "Interactive Magazine" is nothing more than any other web site that people can find anywhere on the Net.

R'osity should call it what it is: A Subscription-based web site; nothing more, nothing less.

"we might even hold an open house for a few select members - A kind of review board :)"

Why only a few and not all? Who will be the lucky few to be picked? Based upon what criteria?

I still see no viable reason why the first edition could not be used as a proving ground and allow all members the right to review it in full vs having to take second-hand suggestions from the "few select members" who will be entrusted to do the review.

"We respect your opinions and we look forward to reviews of the magazine when it comes out :)"

Well, let's hope you can convince people to buy before seeing, first. Even print magazines offer free samples before requesting subscriptions - or you can check them out at the library, and their costs are much higher. I guess R'osity feels that they can be different because the content is of some higher quality.

Smells like a purely financial ploy to me, like many other "initiatives" as of late.

"Everyday, we as consummers, purchase products or services with a leap of faith :)"

That may have been more true pre-Internet, but anyone with access would be foolish not to seek out all information regarding the purchase - be it movie tickets, a video card, a sports car - before plunking down the cash; be it a dollar or a million.

Whereas the costs of an online magazine are far less than printed, why not make the entire first online issue a "selling point" for future versions? Why should the members trust the selected blurbs vs having the ability to gain the full experience? Do you honestly think the Members do not know that R'osity will - like any company - promote what they think are the best parts and leave off the bad or not-so-good? Marketing is nothing new, people have become used to the usual tricks of the trade.

===

"Isn't it reasonable to hold judgment until we can roll out the product?"

Isn't it also reasonable to be able present your opinion (ie, "I wouldn't pay for a subscription to any nontangible thing.") without being criticized when there is nothing yet to review?

"I just think it might be nice to criticize it AFTER people have had a chance to see it."

It may be nice for people to be able to see it to criticize it before paying for it, too.

But that's just me.

I don't assume a product is good before I get a chance to view it, either.

Sorry, it had to be said.

Training is the responsibility of the management, as is the lack thereof. Therefore, it would behoove R'osity to rethink their "OJT" if it is failing them in other sensitive areas, such as PR.