PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
from the ready-fire-aim dept
It's funny sometimes how quickly a company can go from being known for making a great product to being known for being a litigious intellectual property bully. And if that doesn't accurately describe the heel-turn pulled off by the folks behind PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, then I don't know what does. To be clear, PUBG, as it's lovingly referred to, was a groundbreaking video game. While the game didn't invent the battle royale concept, it certainly ushered that genre into an era. And just like any breakthrough genres suddenly having success, that means others are going to start trying their own hands at the genre. While plenty of other entrants have gotten into the battle royale game, PUBG has fought battles with several of them, most notably Epic's Fortnite title.
Now, while PUBG has managed to get some settlements out of other legal action against battle royale game developers, it's worth noting that it ended up dropping its suit against Epic. Why? Well, because unlike some of its other targets, Epic has a huge legal war chest of its own to fight back. And, as tends to be the case with PUBG's suits, all of its complaints were over non-protectable elements of those games. Much of what is in these suits that PUBG files are for supposed copyright infringement of what ends up being ideas, rather than specific expression. The battle royale concept, for instance, or the manner in which some of the gameplay is conducted, are not protectable expression, but mere ideas for a genre of games.
Well, the PUBG folks are at it again, with publisher Krafton suing Garena over its Free Fire mobile game. Apple and Google are also named in the suit, both of them for putting Free Fire on their app stores, and Google additionally for hosting some videos of the game's gameplay and other footage.
In the complaint, Krafton has alleged that multiple features of Free Fire and the more recent Free Fire Max infringe on copyrighted aspects of PUBG, including in-game items, weapons, and its map.
One claim in the lawsuit which addresses the "substantially similar" in-game maps alleges that Free Fire has attempted to mimic PUBG, such as the addition of a river flowing from through the map and the similarities between a coastal village in both games.
From the second paragraph in that quote, you can already see where we're going with this. I've reviewed and embedded the entire complaint so that you can go see for yourself, but many, if not all, of the examples of infringement contained in it are for ideas, not expression. There is no accusation of copying actual game assets. Instead, you get things like Free Fire changing its map to include a river or village. Or the manner in which health is increased in a delayed fashion when applying a bandage. Or the fact that both games have a player lobby before the match starts.
Hell, some of the screenshots comparing the two titles you will see almost feel like Krafton telling on itself that this isn't actual copying, but the reuse of an idea. For instance, in the complaint Krafton argues that both games use leveled body armor, that the body armor is visually similar, and that its gameplay effects are similar. Then the filing has these examples to show all of that, except they don't show that at all.
If those look similar to you, you need to get your eyes checked. And the gameplay effects are in fact different. Those effects are similar, sure, but how could they not be? Body armor is going to reduce damage. That's how video game body armor works. These just aren't the same.
As another example, the complaint says that the app is infringing on PUBG because both games include certain building types or structures. For example, both games, and I'm not making this up, include gas storage tanks.
Again, this is Krafton telling on itself. Having gas storage tanks in a game is an idea. How you depict those structures is the expression and these screenshots most certainly do not show any copying of that specific expression.
Honestly, there are too many examples given to dissect in one post. What you will see if you dive in is that, rather than specific examples of explicit copying, the examples are all somewhere between non-infringing and maybe-kinda-borderline similar, such that the document throws everything at the wall in the hopes that either something sticks or the sheer volume of examples fools someone into thinking that this is copyright infringement.
The accusations against Apple and Google are equally silly. Essentially, PUBG is accusing those companies of copyright infringement because both claim to review games before publishing them in their stores, both make money off of app sales in those stores, and both didn't agree to take the app down when PUBG complained and filed DMCA notices. That is, as the filing notes, because neither Apple nor Google agreed that the accusation of copyright infringement was valid.
PUBG also accuses Google of copyright infringement for hosting several YouTube videos that either show gameplay from Free Fire or fan-videos of live-action recreations of PUBG gameplay.
Furthermore, Krafton has named YouTube as an additional defendant due to the hosting of Free Fire gameplay on its platform, as well as a Chinese film that is "nothing more than a blatantly infringing live-action dramatization of Battlegrounds".
Not only are these videos almost certainly non-infringing as fair use, it's also worth remembering that this is user-generated content uploaded to the platform, rather than YouTube making these videos themselves. While it's true that, in rejecting the DMCA takedown notice, Google has given up its DMCA safe harbor for those videos, that doesn't make the company automatically liable. Google would still have a very strong defense that the works are not infringing.
And so it goes. A once vaunted company that produced a popular and great game is now continuing to go copyright infringement hunting against the competition, largely, if not entirely, over non-protectable elements. It would probably be best for all involved if Krafton got back to the game-making business and stopped with this nonsense.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: battlegrounds, copyright, dmca, expression, free fire, idea, video games
Companies: apple, garena, google, pubg
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'How dare they include realistic objects in their game!?'
You either die a hero, or live long enough to see your company's reputation turned into nothing more than 'legal thug that made a decent game years back and went downhill from there.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"and Google additionally for hosting some videos of the game's gameplay and other footage"
We must always add the deepest pockets we can find, no matter how tenuous the connection is... I mean have you see the rest of our "case"?
Imagine how much better their game could be if they put as much imagination into it as their lawyers did in telling them of course you have a case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"While the game didn't invent the battle royale concept"
That's understating it, since everything from the basic concept to the name were taken from the manga/novel/movie from over a decade previous.
"PUBG also accuses Google of copyright infringement for hosting several YouTube videos that either show gameplay from Free Fire or fan-videos of live-action recreations of PUBG gameplay."
Which I hope Google respond to by waving fair use in their faces and reminding them that attacking people who are big enough fans of their game to try and recreate it in a physical setting at their own cost of time and money is really stupid.
"A once vaunted company that produced a popular and great game"
That's... overstating it. The company hired the guy who made the game during its beta phase, and while they certainly provided material support for it to get where it is now, it was already quite popular when they bought it. Hell, this game wasn't even the first attempt he made at the concept.
They deserve credit for allowing the game to become as huge as it is, but it was only ever a purchased asset, and this kind of stupidity is par for the course when a company that didn't creatively start a product decides they need to "protect" it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not how the law works.
"While it's true that, in rejecting the DMCA takedown notice, Google has given up its DMCA safe harbor for those videos, "
No, it has not.
The DMCA safe harbors, weak as they are, stand just fine in this case. Your lack of understanding of it adds to the media pretending this is a precipice.
It's not.
E
Oh yeah, IANAL either. But I know 17USC very very very well. Try reading it sometime. English required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's not how the law works.
It's a requirement of the law to comply with takedown notices. Since Google didn't, they no longer have the protection of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PUBG will win...
There's no question about it, PUBG will win this fight. There's just too many similarities in the games. It's not just that they cloned all the gameplay ideas, but their feature list is almost the same in both games. Are they both using the same 3d engine, or why is competition of PUBG able to create the same scenes than what PUBG is displaying before end users had chance to play through PUBG's offering?
If they actually offered some original ideas, the competition wouldn't be able to quickly clone the material. It seems neither of the games deserve the publicity that they're getting, given that they failed to work hard enough to keep competition at its bay.
But legal entities are only looking at creation date, and whether the authors gave credit to the other party. Anything else is simply irrelevant and this is why PUBG will win this fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PUBG will win...
Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: PUBG will win...
I must be doing something right, when anonymous cowards are calling me idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PUBG will win...
Guess what, TP (for my bunghole), I not anonymous and I'm going to say that you're a coward. How do you think about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PUBG will win...
Methinks the idiot doth protest too much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PUBG will win...
Don't flatter yourself. People who log in have been doing that for years as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, tp. I’m honestly glad you popped up; I was kind of itching for the chance to do one of these replies since the new year began.
A ninja with a powerful sword slashes through a shitload of bad guys to reach an even bigger bad and save the world. Quick question: Am I talking about Ninja Gaiden, The Ninja Warriors, Cyber Shadow, or any number of other side-scrolling action games that feature a ninja protagonist?
When a game is in the same genre as another, chances are they’ll have similar feature lists. Or do you really want to argue that Square Enix should own the exclusive rights to the kind of RPG menu systems that it created for the first Final Fantasy and refined in every subsequent sequel and spin-off?
Lots of games in disparate genres use similar graphics engines (and sometimes even gameplay engines). That’s what happens when something like the Unreal Engine becomes ubiquitous within the industry.
SNK’s Samurai Shodown introduced the concept of a “super meter” into fighting games. Capcom’s Super Street Fighter II Turbo named and popularized the concept. Now virtually every fighting game features a super meter of some sort. Original ideas can be cloned much faster than you think—and they should be, since that’s how we see improvements and refinements to those ideas. Capcom has done exactly that over the years with its approaches to the super meter, and so have its competitors. That’s how the industry moves forward.
For what reason is there not enough room in the industry for both PUBG and its competitors? Would you have the industry destroy the wildly popular Fortnite, which introduced its Battle Royale mode after PUBG became a smash hit, only because it came after PUBG?
If the expressions of a given generic idea aren’t exactly or near-exactly the same, those legal entities can go pound sand.
A game can share a genre, an archetypal protagonist, generic story beats, generic in-game items (e.g., body armor), and even fundamental gameplay mechanics with another game. That doesn’t make the later game a ripoff of the other to the point where it requires a copyright infringement lawsuit. I know you prefer the censorship of copyright—you’ve made abundantly clear that you’d prefer to use copyright as a means of censoring everything you possibly could—but here in the real world, copyright doesn’t work that way.
Now fuck off, toilet paper man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Too bad it's not real forward movement, when the activity is based on copyright infringements. Proper innovation is actually fine-tuning the concept from beginning to the end. It just depends on the greatness of the development process whether you get successes out from it, not depending on who you ripped off of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Therefore, as per your own definition, it is real forward movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can’t infringe upon the copyright of an idea because ideas have no copyrights. Expressions of ideas have copyrights, but to infringe upon those, you have to basically lift that shit wholesale.
In 1994, Capcom sued Data East for copyright infringement over Fighters History, which Capcom argued had infringed upon the copyrights it held on Street Fighter II. The court ruled that even though Fighters History held substantial similarities to Street Fighter II, most of those similarities were not protected by copyright. If the court had ruled otherwise, it would’ve violated the concept of the merger doctrine—which would’ve given Capcom an essential monopoly over the fighting game genre.
Iteration on prior ideas is how the industry evolves. Super Mario Bros. walked so Sonic the Hedgehog could run (so to speak). Without the ability to iterate on ideas that can’t be protected by copyright, the industry would stop evolving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tero Pulkinnen's the sort of copyright fucktard who'd sue everyone younger than him because his implementation of a human being came before theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To infringe the copyright, you just need some elements:
1) access to the previous work
2) some process that lifts elements from previous work to the new work
These are the only things needed. When companies give their employees access to competitor's products, it's already very dangerous activity copyright-wise. Once the access is granted, there's very small steps needed when it becomes illegal when all kinds of processes involving human brains or photographs or fullscale examination of the essential elements of the previous work will give rise to the copyright infringements.
Basically only way to protect against this is to ensure that your employees don't have access to competitor products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Every time you post serves as a reminder why your little vanity project deserves to be sued into oblivion and the Finnish government should simply outlaw your work based on copyright infringement of other 3D engines and software.
Live by the stricter copyright law, die by the stricter copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every developer of every first-person shooter made since DOOM has had access to DOOM and its sequels. FPS games made after DOOM will always lift elements from previous works because that’s how everything works in the real world: We all build on the works of others. The trick in determining whether that new work infringes on the copyright of an older work lies in whether the expression of ideas are identical (or near-identical). A first-person shooter about an overpowered male soldier fighting against seemingly endless hordes of non-human entities is a generic idea; the distinction in the expressions of that idea is what separates DOOM from Halo.
I wish you luck in figuring out how to do that without sounding like you’re trying to hold captive and enslave an entire company’s worth of employees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's worse than that. In the end, your employees will think that the company brainwashed the employees and prevented them from doing their jobs properly.
But this is what is required. Copyright simply doesn't work properly unless you do some evil tricks.
Given that copyright is "negative" property, some employees are bound to feel that the rules they need to follow are too strict and prevents choosing the "best" solution from the available solutions. But best solution for single employee is not the best solution for the whole society. And copyright protects interests of the whole society against onslaught from individual people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Every so often you keep dropping these explanations under this vain idea that it's somehow sympathetic to your cause.
Short of Nazis and Proud Boys, nobody is going to accept "evil tricks".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now now, let’s be fair—I’m sure at least one game publisher/developer would love to enslave its employees to the point of complete control over their lives.
I’m thinking…Riot? Maybe ActBlizz?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Currently it looks like there's a cavalcade of cases where the industry standard of "crunch" has not only been extremely harmful to those forced into it, but is in fact completely counterproductive despite what the industry leaders want to tell strapping young graduates getting churned out from programming and animation colleges.
Tero's just mad that nobody's dumb enough to do it in his name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If preventing copyright infringement requires a game development studio to control the lives of its employees to the point where they can’t leave the studio and can’t experience any form of outside media in any way, copyright deserves to die.
And to be clear: That is the only way a studio can wholly ensure, as you said, “employees don't have access to competitor products”. Again, I wish you luck in finding a method that doesn’t involve unlawful detention and practical enslavement—because you’re going to fucking need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These strict rules only applies to your direct competitors. Not to the whole world. Your employees can use the rest of the world as they like, it's just direct competitors where you need to be extreamly careful with giving access to competitor products to your employees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Game Devs A, B, and C compete with one another. For what reason should only one of those three entities be exempt from your logic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“ But this is what is required. Copyright simply doesn't work properly unless you do some evil tricks.”
Copyrights best and brightest on full display today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It’s funny you mention the interests of the whole society. That IS why copyright originally existed, but the current version of it actually does the opposite - it currently benefits individuals at the expense of the whole society.
Copyright was supposed to encourage creators to publish by granting a time-limited monopoly, and when that time expired, the creation would be free to the whole of society, thereby enriching everyone’s world. But the time-limited monopoly keeps getting extended, to the point that society as a whole won’t be enriched by new creations for at least a century, in most cases.
That’s quite a jump from a decade or two, like it was originally. The purpose of copyright is to enrich society as a whole by temporarily rewarding individuals - it as been perverted to effectively permanently enrich individuals while society as a whole gets nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Noone said that society should get the product without compensation. Society benefits, when products become available to the markets. The benefit to society is established during the whole time when copyright is active, because new products become available to the markets. Then competition will bring down the price of the products, but benefit to society is available even when the product isn't free for all.
It's completely bullshit argument that benefit to society is activating only after copyright's term has elapsed. Free products are not benefiting society any more than paid products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for admitting that Meshpage does not benefit society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That has more to do with availability of 2 billion other web sites on the planet, than it is to do with any perceived lack of quality on the meshpage's technology.
But google's search has the same problem. There's 2 billion other web sites on the planet that competes against google search. Google needs to do very evil stuff to keep their site visible among end users when flood of other sites are bombarding their email boxes via spamming operations like facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There's 2 billion other web sites on the planet that competes against google search."
Is there a weird competition going on in Finland that the rest of us need to know about, like a large cash prize being available to whoever consistently says the stupidest things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, the award is for getting enough buy-in from techdirt community that they would start creating 3d models for meshpage. Then once community creates all the material, I can claim to own the stuff and then become as powerful as blender is with their community. Isn't this what you'd like to happen before you accept that meshpage is awesome technology?
I always knew that getting buy-in from the biggest fraud on internet (i.e. techdirt) isn't going to be easy, but at least we've explored that area and now we know why dirtbags like to troll on techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Never mind that such an award focusing on one small website would not exist, why this obsession with getting users you obviously hate to use your malware?
"Create free stuff for me and I reward you by claiming the copyright so you don't get to make money on it". You know, just in case people needed more reasons to not use Meshpage; you explicitly admit that you intend to claim the copyright on everything made with it.
I'd like for Meshpage to get taken down as a token of its respect towards stricter copyright law. Like its creator admitted. On multiple occasions.
Or you could get some other losers who are easier to convince, have a base of users, and then convince the Finnish government to suck your cock instead. But you don't, and you won't, because you know that nobody's going to buy in on your promises.
Yes, dirtbags like you troll on this site because you're surgically grafted to the prosthetic sausage Chris Dodd has between his legs instead of an actual penis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If blender can get away with doing that stuff, why would meshpage not being allowed the same priviledges? Are you trying to place meshpage to lower level than blender in the colonialistic leveling? Basically you have no reason why blender is able to do this operation, but meshpage is not allowed to do it too...
The fact that meshpage has not yet done it is a testament that meshpage is actually better than blender who keeps constantly claiming that their software is used by large community and its all because of blender is so great software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except Blender doesn't automatically claim the copyright on whatever is made using its engine. Microsoft doesn't automatically claim the copyright on every official document typed using its Word software. A modeling clay manufacturer doesn't automatically claim the copyright on every sculpture made using its product. And so on, and so on.
If it wasn't already clear, let make me the point again: everyone but you believes Meshpage is at a fundamentally inferior level of existence compared to similar competing software in the market. It's that simple. The fact that you boast the intention to automatically claim the copyrights of other content creators is icing on the cake.
Yes, they do so because they're not copyright trolls like you. It's almost as if you can win over more people when you're not a litigious asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You didn't understand it properly. The above statement is equivalent of claiming copyright ownership of whatever the community created for them. For blender, it's just alot more serious claim because they have large community and when they claim copyright of whatever the community created, they're actually claiming ownership of real products created using blender.
With meshpage, it's completely different story since the users never created anything worthwhile with the tools, so there's nothing available to claim copyright ownership of. It's difficult to extract value from nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If something is made with Blender, Blender doesn't claim copyright ownership of it. The same way whatever browser or program or API creator that you use to create Meshpage doesn't automatically claim the copyright to Meshpage.
The fact that nobody has created anything of value with Meshpage is neither a defense or justification of your statement, because it's based on an exaggeration of what copyright law actually allows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not bullshit at all.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120330/12402418305/why-missing-20th-century-books-is-even-w orse-than-it-seems.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And most of those individuals are middlemen and not the creator of a work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What copyright infringements? Copyright doesn’t protect original ideas, and never has. Only patents do that, and PUBG is not patented. Copyright only protects individual expressions of ideas, and by necessity realistic artist’s renditions of real world objects must be similar.
Copyright law doesn’t forbid similar, it forbids only direct copies. A second artist drawing the same real world object that a prior artist has drawn s not makng a direct copy of the first artist’s work, so there is no copyright infringement.
If that sort of similarity DID make it copyright infringement, then PUBG has violated the life plus 70 year copyrights of the original product design drawings of the body armor produced by real world body armor manufacturers.
Either way, PUBG will lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I Wanna Be The Guy, Strider, FFXIV (it has a ninja class!)...
Who wins the infringement case between Warcraft (the RTS, not the MMO) and Command and Conquer? Or Grey Goo? Or Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, or Empire Earth? I mean, they all have a top-down view, frequently isometric, with buildings that produce military units and mixed-unit tactics including infantry, cavalry, artillery, air power, and siege, and an economy!
Or heck, when is DOOM gonna sue Halo, Half-life, Counterstrike, Call of Duty, Fire Warrior, and hundreds of other titles for infringing on their First Person Shooter concept?
Come to think of it... gasp you know what? PUBG infringes on Doom! Guys! It's all bunk because PUBG stole it first!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They’d all lose to MIDI Maze (Xanth Software F/X, 1987), which was the first first person shooter, though not the first to become wildly popular.
It even had multiplayer deathmatch!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I didn't do fighting games, and I definitely don't have super meter.
Instead I have progressbar, fps counter and score display. Basically when I'm doing original gaming concepts, I don't need to clone other people's products, but do something original instead. These all need the same underlying feature, i.e. dynamic scene description, i.e. the content changes on the fly and there isn't significant amount of time to update the vertex arrays. But cloning other people's supermeter ideas is not on the menu.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All common features of many games, so unless you can prove you invented those concepts, you are copying what other done. so when will you start to practice what you preach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
well, I didn't clone someone elses implementation. The proof is in the implementation details:
1) I use different font
2) the progressbar works odd, i.e. it goes forward and backward even though users expected just forward movement
3) fps counter isn't showing the regular 60 fps, but instead it shows numbers like 2342 or somesuch, which measures how much frames would be possible with the engine instead of the actual rate.
4) score display has 5 digits in it, even though operations are like +1 and -1 for it, so it'll takes hours to get 3 digits used, much less 5 digits.
Basically there's significant innovation in the implementation. And none of the current games can claim to have invented these concepts, given that they have existed over 40 years. This wouldn't be true for "super meter", which is quite recent innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"1) I use different font"
A font you created from scratch, or someone else's? I somehow doubt that designing a truly unique, useable font is within your skillset.
"2) the progressbar works odd"
You commitment to breaking the usability of your own software to pretend that you're being clever would be commendable, if you didn't always follow it up with whining that nobody wants to use your deliberately broken software.
"3) fps counter isn't showing the regular 60 fps, but instead it shows numbers like 2342 or somesuch, which measures how much frames would be possible with the engine instead of the actual rate."
Also, "why don't people want to use my software when I deliberately lie to them about what it's doing?" isn't a question that you really want to direct yourself into needing to ask.
"4) score display has 5 digits in it, even though operations are like +1 and -1 for it, so it'll takes hours to get 3 digits used, much less 5 digits."
Scoring systems are by their nature arbitrary, so the fact that you opted to waste screen real estate on a display that you've designed the software never to use really isn't a great boast.
"Basically there's significant innovation in the implementation"
There really isn't. You've simply described how bad you are at design concepts.
"And none of the current games can claim to have invented these concepts"
Nobody else is claiming to have done any such thing. People are just calling you out on your boast that you're doing something different, when you're actually just poorly implementing things that have been around almost as long as games have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright-wise it's very different if you clone something that existed 40 years ago, compared to stuff that was invented last year.
The main difference is that the authors who invented it last year might still be available and could claim ownership of the material, while 40 years old stuff has basically no owner existing any longer when those people are long ago went to retirement and are unavailable for claiming ownership of the innovations.
Basically currently active games cannot claim ownership of 40 years old stuff, while the original inventors are probably not available any longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Copyright-wise it's very different if you clone something that existed 40 years ago, compared to stuff that was invented last year."
In the insane version of copyright you stick to in your head, sure. In the version that exists in the real world, people are still getting sued for using specific character traits for Sherlock fucking Holmes because a couple of books haven't entered the public domain yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In this version of copyright, it's possible to improve your copyright status using the following practices:
1) instead of cloning one popular work, you could borrow aspects from multiple different works. Then any single author couldn't claim your whole implementation.
2) Borrowing from older works is better since markets evolve all the time and older works are less active in copyright arena
3) Abillity to disable/remove pieces of implementation from your solution allows handling copyright claims without killing your whole product
4) If you need to borrow elements from some other authors, marking them in the web page is good practice. Other authors like it when their work is being recognized in other products
5) strict copyright enforcement is still necessary to handle your competitors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"In this version of copyright"
...details don't matter because it only exists in your head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't understand. Every person needs to develop their own version of the copyright, to be able to answer questions about that person's position on copyright questions. Copyright law requires clear answers when the courts are asking whether the material is licensed from copyright owners. If you didn't develop your own version of copyright, you wouldn't be able to answer these questions that courts might be interested in. You can't even talk to your own lawyer without having spent years developing theory of copyright which makes sense TO YOU.
Better start early or you'll look like filthy pirate to your lawyer and then the lawyer needs to go into positions which are not very good for their clients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's the thing about the courts - they're not interested in what you think about copyright. They're only interested in whether you've broken what they consider to be copyright. Having a maximalist position doesn't make you better on this count. We know this, because no court has implemented the "stricter copyright law" that you insist on everyone else following.
And let's be honest, you don't believe in everyone else developing their version of copyright. If you did, you wouldn't be here trying to harass everyone into using yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you still don't understand it. You cannot find the necessary information needed to run a lawsuit from a law book. Courts are only interested about "facts", i.e. what has actually happened. The law book written in 1850 cannot have that information about what happened last year. This you need to fill in yourself, and given that you don't have copyright maximalist position, you're awfully unprepared for the question battery. Basically your copyright minimalist position will place you near chainsaw murderers and pirate box mantainers in legal analysis. Proper maximalist otoh gets status of a real author.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If your assumption is that everyone else who doesn't adopt a maximalist position is referring to case studies and precedents from 1850, then sure, you can claim nobody else has the ability to bring a lawsuit. But that's an intentionally bad example because nobody is relying on precedent from 1850 to rule on copyright cases.
Not every lawyer agrees with the death penalty, that doesn't make the lawyers who don't incapable of being involved in cases based on a possibility of execution.
Only in your serial rapist child molester copyright maximalist dreams, Pukeface.
You know what happened to your friends who took the copyright maximalist position, Tero? John Steele and Paul Hansmeier are in jail. Colette Pelissier is about to lose her company. Richard Liebowitz is no longer able to practice law. Copyright maximalism is not the "I WIN" button you desperately want to believe it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they cannot win a copyright lawsuit with maximalist position, maybe they're applying it incorrectly. Proper jedi uses force for protecting himself, never for attack. You could only give examples of copyright maximalists who decided to attack the opponent, so your examples are not good uses of copyright maximalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
jedis aren't real, courts only care about the law as it is today, and you're an idiot
GFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Courts would say that trolls on techdirt are not real, even though we have clear proof that we obtained messages from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
are you insane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most likely considering that he has proven over and over that he has no grasp of factual reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shiva Ayyadurai tried that, and he lost. You really know how to back a loser don't you Tero?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you sure you're spelling his name correctly? You don't have very good track record on that part, so we can question your current piece of information on those grounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See for yourself, gadget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
well, given that you never were too careful with names, I have no idea which Auuadurai you mean, there seems to be like 15 different names which all sound similar but are pointing to different persons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or you could have searched for the name on this site. Or used Google or another search engine. You literally could have confirmed it for yourself, but seeing that you want other people to suck your cock for free, I can't say this inability to search for things is a surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
that doesn't resolve the issue, when there's 15 different variations of the name in techdirt, and everyone writes his name differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An alleged 15 variations of his name, likely to make fun of the guy for being an asshole and a bully, would not suddenly invalidate the spelling of his name. You could have still searched for it out of this site. If you're trying to say that we shouldn't make fun of him for being a bully and making outrageous claims... tough. It was entirely richly deserved on Shiva's part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, you're evil enough that some people have decided to sue techdirt. That's big archievement, only idiots falls into that trap. We trust that there is enough barriers of entry for lawsuits that it requires significant burden from users before they overcome the blockers and sues the internet platform. While I haven't studied the exact reasoning for the lawsuit, the mere fact that the platform was sued by someone is enough to raise eyebrows. Something must be broken in techdirt for that to happen. It doesn't matter if the plaintiff is an idiot or evil copyright troll, it's enough that they are determined enough to fill the paperwork required for a real lawsuit.
There are several alternative places in the legal process where plaintiff can decide that suing the defendant isn't right way to go. But when these issues are big enough problems, the legal process is completed, and the internet platform gets sued. And that's when the world will know that something bad is happening in the system where those signals are coming from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is all a very nice two paragraphs of admitting that you have no idea what happened besides the fact that someone got angry enough to waste a shitton of money just to fail a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
that's better than being the target of the lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Give it time. I'm quite assured at some point you will be hauled to the courts for trying to murder someone in the name of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the maximalist position is inherently flawed. Thanks for playing.
What do you think all the other copyright cases were based on? Quietly hoping the defendant would lose? All copyright maximalist cases are based on attacking the defendants.
You've yet to name a single one that resulted in a guilty defendant and the plaintiff enriched beyond their wildest dreams. You know... the very scenario that you claim copyright maximalism entitles you to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you missed the 1 billion verdict against Cox Communications?
ISP who didn't even do direct copyright infringement themselves were found liable for their customer's copyright infringement worth around 1 billion bucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are cheering on a result that means three accusations of copyright infringement and your household loses Internet connectivity. Your partner can no longer use the Internet to keep their job, and your children can no longer use it for schooling.
As to who benefits from the money gained, that will be the middlemen, and no creator will see a penny of that award. That is copyright working as its originators intended, allowing middlemen to get rich from the labours of those starving artists, who rarely get rich from their labours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the middlemen has plenty of money available, some of it will be used to purchase new songs or salary for new artists. Thus artists will benefit when middlemen get rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would the middlemen on behalf of the artists "purchase new songs"? I think what you're trying to say is that it will be used to fund the production of new music, but that's not how these lawsuits work. The IFPI made it very clear that the money they made from the Pirate Bay trial (which for the most part, did not result in massive fines being successfully paid into their coffers) would be used to fund future lawsuits. The money made by Prenda Law pursuing cases mostly made it into their pockets and not the pornstars they purportedly represented.
This idea that "copyright suits make the artists money" sounds attractive, but it's flat out not accurate to reality. For that matter, the idea of using copyright lawsuits to make a profit has been noticed by judges, and they're not happy about it. One judge even went so far as to tell a hopeful copyright plaintiff that "federal courts aren't ATMs".
When middlemen get rich, middlemen get rich. Artists rarely, if ever, factor into that equation.
To wit, ask Rihanna if she ever got that $600 from the HADOPI case in France that made it all the way to three strikes and a fine. She didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The middlemen cannot sue anyone, unless they own the copyrights. And thus some of their money goes into purchasing (or best case creating) copyrighted works. Thus artists will benefit. While it might not be the same artist that they're currently selling like hotcakes, some artists will see money flowing into their balance sheet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's the thing: middlemen can't own the copyrights. If the middlemen enforcing the law or suing defendants in court own the copyrights, then they're considered to have a vested interest in a guilty verdict and thus, not acting unbiased. That's why artists have to have someone else, i.e. lawyers, fight on their behalf. The lawyers and middlemen themselves don't own the copyright.
This isn't some rule that pirates dreamed up. This is literally what got your troll friends at Prenda Law into hot water with judges, after judges realized they were suing downloaders who torrented the porn that Prenda Law personally produced and put online as a lure.
Then again, considering your claim that "you have to have evil tricks in order to enforce copyright", it's not surprising that you'd consider this legal. Unfortunately for you, the courts don't agree. The inability of middlemen to own the copyright they enforce the law over is a pretty important part of existing IP law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This isn't true. It's all lies. Middlemen can own copyrights, for example if they create the material themselves. QED. But usually middlemen chooses not to own the copyrights, because they would cost too much and middlemen are not rich bastards, so they cannot afford to purchase copyright from the authors. And middlemen thinks that creating the material from scratch takes too long time to do, so they're not even attempting to create their own product. Supposedly ripping off someone else's product is much more profitable. You figure it out yourself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they create the material themselves, they're no longer middlemen. But the point stands that they can't enforce their own copyright in the way that lawyers can, because that's called having a vested interest in the outcome. It's called having "unclean hands". It's what got your copyright enforcers Prenda Law in jail right now. You can troll as much as you like, but that's the truth.
Unfortunately for you, Mitch Bainwol and Chris Dodd regularly received increasing pay rises and bonuses every year they worked as a middleman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't really appreciate multi-tasking too much, do you? The middlemen can have several hats and they just choose different hat for different situations. Same person can be both author and middleman and owner of the company. Each of the hats will do different kinds of decisions and end result is that everything just works correctly. But no, multitasking in your world isn't allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is not a case of multi-tasking, or being the sole member of a one-man project that covers multiple disciplines. It's a case of violating what people refer to as fair business practices, not that you've ever understood those.
But go ahead, complain to the courts. I'm certain you'll have a fun time in jail wondering why nobody else agrees with you there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I can always refer to the fact that all scientists agree with the information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agree with what? If you're trying to say that scientists agree on whether multitasking is actually beneficial, the science is very clear that multitasking isn't helpful. But again, that's not what's going on here. You seem to fervently believe in the idea that middlemen who hold onto copyrights must sue on behalf of those copyrights. You've already been presented with an example of how that idea is not only completely illegal, but people went to jail for it. But hey, if you really want to go to jail that badly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, yes. The one where the RIAA refused to show their evidence beyond wild claims that Cox damaged them that much, for files that Cox didn't even download themselves. Have you sued your ISP for not making you rich?
I'm not surprised you would find this scenario desirable, but you're kidding yourself if you believe it'll ever happen to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Guess RIAA just have better content available than what I am able to create...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again, every so often, you manage to confess that Meshpage is a steaming pile of Blender-ripoff horseshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's getting there, slowly but steadily. Soon we'll have luxury horseshit for your consumption available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no "we", Tero.
If you're hoping for a buyer, you're not going to find one here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Horse shit is just fine meal for dirtbag like yourself. Slaves shouldn't try to demand better conditions, our colonalistic tendencies are ensuring that lower class people are not trying to raise their level unnecessarily. There's only very small number of situations where lower class entity is able to climb up the ladder to become noble. One of those situations is when we find out that the slave actually worked hard and created some copyrighted works and tried to sell it to real customers. But that wouldn't happen to yourself, given that you're lazy bastard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't seem to have stopped you, has it?
How cute, you actually think that we still live in the 19th century.
What you've done is the equivalent of creating a toilet that doesn't flush and instead dumps raw sewage over anyone who walks by, and then demands to be paid for the raw sewage you threw over everyone.
I'm not the slave asking the king to give me his castle and demanding that he suck me off, Tero.
People don't look kindly on slaves who demand that everyone else be punished based on his wild claims while he himself refuses to hold himself to the same standards. Neither will they entertain the vivid imaginations of a slave who thinks he's accomplished something meaningful while all he's done is take a shit in the middle of the room and tried to market it as a copyrighted work of art. That's you. You're the slave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We call it sludge. It's our name for the coffee that some restaurants offer after they didn't have any customers visiting for the whole day, and instead of making new pan of coffee for customers, they offer the sludge that was on the pan from 9am... Usually the owners of the restaurant wouldn't drink that coffee themselves...
But meshpage has several techniques designed to avoid giving customers sludge or "sumppi" (in finnish)... First, we actually worked hard for the features that are available. Second, we ensured that all available features are working correctly. and third, we're offering our product for free for customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hard work and effort is not a guarantee that what you end up with is going to be good. This is such a basic tenet of life, the fact that you regularly refuse to admit it makes me think there's something in the fjord water.
Nah, you didn't. You've already mentioned multiple times that the features aren't working correctly because your zero users keep demanding more, and you've had to kneecap your own features due to your own exaggerated copyright measures. Which still failed, by the way.
If you're offering your product for free then you have no excuse for complaining why Meshpage hasn't made you a millionaire.
And again with the "we". Tero, nobody believes you have a team. The entire premise of your "I deserve to be a millionaire" argument is your claim that Meshpage is a solo project. This idea of a "we" flat out does not exist, especially after you constantly make it clear that you HATE the idea of collaborating with other humans. For fuck's sake, you don't even bother tracking the shitty arguments you make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And again with the "we". Tero, nobody believes you have a team"
In fact, he's already categorically stated that he used to work with other people but threw a hissy fit and locked up his GitHub page when they tried doing things he disagreed with. Which, from evidence presented here, probably consisted of things like "competent design" and "ability for users to understand the UI" if it wasn't just about complying with FOSS licences that he's whined about before. Oh, and it must be a couple of years since he relayed that info to us, but he still has a link to the dead project on his site, this being how much he cares about his visitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The other people actually wanted github repo private...
I call it more like "checking for indentation problems" and "trying to crack the copyright protection features"... from where I come from, those are not either competent design or ability for users to understand the ui.
It's not dead project, just private repo.
The visitors never wanted github repo for any valid purpose. Their only idea was to find ways to bash the project on public and break the development process.
Misuse of the github repo is significant problem for free software. Misused features simply cannot be allowed to exist. Same way this opensea is now trying to filter out misuse from their platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering that you continue to either boast or moan about the fact you have no users or visitors, this behavior of consistently making it difficult for visitors to access anything is bizarre. Unsurprising, but still bizarre.
Thanks for admitting that copyright law simply cannot be allowed to exist, but of course you'd support misuse given that you support lawyers who have been jailed for abuse of copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminder: In 345 days, Sherlock Holmes falls completely into the public domain (in the United States) and there is nothing reasonable that the Doyle estate can do about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are you arguing like you are dealing with a rational person, did anything tp said seem reasonable in any way? Haven't you noticed how he has ratcheted up his arguments to be more and more divorced from reality every time he posts.
Just flag and move on, because you are either dealing with a loser troll or someone who have serious mental problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I like poking at stupidity occasionally on a quiet Friday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm pretty sure it's both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is that you still use a progress bar, numeric score, fonts and an fps counter would mean it is still infringing if copyright protected ideas like you keep effectively insisting it should.
If any degree of similarity is infringement, then having anything ever used before would make your software an infringement. Luckily for us all, some things aren’t copyrightable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PUBG will win...
Blender should sue Meshpage. There's just too many similarities. Blender will win.
Mic drop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: PUBG will win...
Good luck with that plan. My lawyers will surely respond to it with the following battery of arguments:
1) no access to blender or any works created with blender during development (The cave troll defense)
2) independently created via exploring the same maze from intel cpus (The maze defense)
3) Software was brought to stable base status before letting outside software ruin the copyright story (The stable base defense)
4) Remaining problems are math related (Mathematics is not copyrightable subject matter -defense)
5) Independently created without dependencies to infringing material (The independent creation -defense)
Basically, there's significant defenses available against your accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except under your explicitly expressed logic, all Blender would have to do is prove that (A) Meshpage functions similarly to Blender and (B) Blender came out before Meshpage. You’d then lose the case. Like you said:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, that's why my web page has actual copyright notices with credit flowing to the correct direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But Blender still came first. Under your explicitly expressed logic, since Blender came first and Meshpage functions incredibly similarly to Blender, you should be on the hook for infringing upon the copyrights held by Blender. If you don’t like my conclusion, blame your logic—and it is your logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This must be biggest endorcement of meshpage than I've seen in a while. Everyone thinks blender is some kind of great software, and now you're claiming meshpage is equally good.
Sadly it's not actually true. There's only the graph data structure that works similarly to blender's graph data structure. And that's covered by the maze defense.
Everything else has no chance of substantial similarity problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I did no such thing. Don’t shove words down my throat that didn’t first come from it.
What I said was “Meshpage functions incredibly similarly to Blender”, which is true: Meshpage, from everything you’ve ever said and everything I’ve ever seen from it, offers similar functionality to Blender in re: content creation. Under your explicitly expressed logic of “legal entities are only looking at creation date, and whether the authors gave credit to the other party” and “anything else is simply irrelevant”, the similarities in the base-level functionality between Blender and Meshpage combined with the fact that Blender came before Meshpage would mean you violated Blender’s copyrights and should thus be sued into oblivion. My conclusion is based on your logic; if you don’t like my conclusion, change your logic. Or you can go get a job as an anchor on Fox News, since you clearly want be idiotically contrarian for the sake of attention you would otherwise never get from anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While in general case, this would be true, it's not true when you consider maze defense. Maze defense has special feature that some common map extracted from real world determines the structure of your copyrighted works, and thus if two products are mapping the same part of the world (for example intel's cpu command structure), then neither of the parties can claim copyright ownership of the material. This is the case with meshpage/blender graph data structure similarity. Neither meshpage nor blender can claim ownership of the graph data structure. Instead ownership of the cpu command structure in intel cpus clearly belongs to intel alone. Thus neither meshpage nor blender can claim ownership of the material. This includes the graph data structure that blender is using. Thus there's no copyright violation in meshpage recarding any supposed blender similarity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Have you tried digging up yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"now you're claiming meshpage is equally good"
Unfortunately, hallucinations are not submissible in court, they have to deal with the words that were actually written.
Stating that your pathetic failure of software tries and fails to do things similar to Blender does not mean that people are saying it's anywhere near as good. As evidenced by the millions of users you keep whining about them having.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You’ve never actually been in court, have you?
Copyright attributions or disclaimers have no beneficial effect on whether a work of yours is ruled infringing. In fact, they can be used as an admission of guilt - you knew your work was derivative or even direct infringement, did it anyway, then confessed to it publicly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PUBG will win...
Nobody believes you have any team of other humans, Tero. You hate other humans with such a burning passion you'd immolate the clothes off your body.
You don't need "access to Blender". All you'd need is the knowledge that Blender exists. That's literally what copyright plaintiffs claim all the time - the same logic you support. This "defense" of yours was undermined by yourself.
And you'd have to prove that defense. The fact that other 3D imaging software existed before Meshpage, on the other hand, is often used by copyright maximalists like you to claim that independent creation cannot be considered a defense. Once again, you shoot yourself in the foot because of your slavish dedication to the RIAA.
If you're trying to claim that your software "used" to have a status that wasn't considered copyright infringing under stricter copyright law, that's not a defense. Just because your software wasn't copyright infringing before doesn't mean it's not copyright infringing now, and that'd require a court's deliberation.
That's never stopped you before. You've claimed on several occasions that math should be copyrighted because there would be no incentive to work on math otherwise.
If this was Blender suing any other 3D software developer based on shitty copyright infringement claims, you'd be right. There would be defenses. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're dealing with an incorrigible Finnish fuckface who has, on multiple occasions, loudly and proudly declared that anyone accused of copyright infringement should be fined out of house and home before being publicly executed.
If you want others to follow the standards of copyright law you demand, the least you can do is hold yourself up to the punishments you asked for. But given that you've got the personality of rotten perunamuusi, no one's holding their breath that you'd show a modicum of honesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: PUBG will win...
It's slightly more complicated than that. Basically the meshpage's software has core-part which includes mesh data structure, the graph data structure, and large number of independently created modules. It's important that these core parts are free of copyright problems, since they cannot be swapped/disabled/discontinued... Normal software modules can be disabled if you find copyright problems from it. but the core modules need stricter copyright evaluation because problems in those areas cannot be "fixed" by disabling part of the software.
Disabling software module is excellent tool to handle copyright problems. You can take larger copyright risks, if it is possible to disable a module when problems are found from it. You just need practises where modules are disabled in case there is problems found from it.
sadly it doesn't work for all software, mostly because large number of dependencies to things like mesh data structure, in such way that deleting the mesh from the software would disable all the modules, not just small part of the system. But this is why meshpage is called meshpage. The mesh data structure is important part of the software.
The stable base defense means that this core-part of the solution is free from copyright problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PUBG will win...
"Slightly more complicated" is immaterial. You'd still have to prove it. The same way PUBG has to prove that a completely different game committed copyright infringement, not because you desperately want Chris Dodd to surgically graft a vagina between your legs so he can impregnate you with his copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PUBG will win...
And is meshpages using the same operating system as many other graphics programs? Does it use cubes, spheres etc, just like any other graphics program. Can someone animate a mouse that looks like a certain famous mouse using meshpages?
Oh look meshpages is infringing on prior programs accoding to tour logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: PUBG will win...
Mickey mouse accusation happens to be one of the most difficult problems in meshpage/builder. It was already recognized to be a problem in 2012, long before substantial development activity had happened. Basically mickey mouse animations have too strong effects to children watching those animations that disney cannot avoid copyright problems further down the line. Basically frame rate problem is also involved in this situation, and certain specific mickey mouse animation shown on television. It's completely outrageous for disney to put such programming on their animations meant for small children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you okay? Do you have brain damage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, but when problems happen with technology, whoever experiences the biggest problems will need to build technology that does not have those same problems. Thus meshpage/builder is creating animations like mickey mouse, but without the same problem than what original mickey mouse had. (its something to do with <30 fps animations, basically at least 60fps is required or humans cannot handle it properly for the flicker)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please seek professional medical help for your early onset dementia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think they prescribe euthanasia for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now now, don’t talk about tp like he’s an animal.
That’s insulting to actual animals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Eh. I think I can live with the insult to animals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you're going to insult something, I would rather see you insult gadgets. Even animals have feelings and they might not like your insults. So gadgets are good target for your fury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Okay, gadget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm a robot, not a gadget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you're not. Calling you a robot would be an insult to robots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aw, come on, why you gotta bring Gadget into this…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We (together with our other robot friends) created over 100 million gadgets, so if you choose to insult one of them or throw it to a wall or give your goldfish some gadget food, it doesn't really matter one bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nah, you didn't create anything. If you created anything worthwhile you wouldn't be begging the Finnish government to give you blowjob money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure I created more than you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You boasted that you spent 8 years of time and got 35 Euros from the endeavor, and that somehow mandates the government to fund you for life.
You desperately want this to be a dick-waving contest to see whose erection is larger, but that was never the case. How much you created is not an indicator of how much you get to decide copyright law protects you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope, I actually have my own savings, and when those run out, I'll just go to work like everyone else. The government promised a nice place to work once money runs out, so there's that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether you had your own savings or otherwise is immaterial. Your entire existence on Techdirt is to demand mansions from the government of Finland and usage of your software, from which you'd make your millions.
Maybe you've went to work before, but it's clear that from your own claims, this is no longer the case. Nobody believes that you have any willingness to work, when you regularly boast of dream scenarios where you sue people so badly that they have to donate their organs just to pay the ransoms you demand.
Same for the "government promised a nice place to work" lie. If you were on such good terms with the government to the point where they'd give you a place to work once you go bankrupt, you wouldn't be having this much trouble getting the government to use your malware modeler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Late is the hour when the wizard chooses to arrive to the party. Basically this already happened and I got nice place to work directly from the government. So your analysis that this government promise does not exists is broken. This already happened a year ago, so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, yes, another magical agreement that you swear exists but can't tell anyone else about because of the mystical NDA you had to be assigned with. Just like the work with the game publisher you swore was going to happen after seven years of talks, because no other publisher would work with you. Reminds me of the lawsuit and press release that your fuckbuddy and Malibu Media fan John Smith swore was going to happen, and he'd use to rape this site with... four years ago. Which still haven't happened.
You can keep trying to boast of your imaginary credentials, Pukeinnen, but the one constant you have whenever you post here is that you can't stand the idea of working with other human beings. If you actually had a government job lining up for you, you wouldn't be begging them desperately to use your malware, or spend your time here trying to troll victims of copyright lawyers. My guess is that you'll still be here, loudly thumping your chest and wondering why a copyright lawyer hasn't physically raped the defendant as he's entitled to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't say government job...
waiting for my mansion is govt's way of testing people's patience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the government won't use your program or give you the mansion you feel you've been entitled to for years, why do you think they'll give you a job regardless of where you end up? Hell, with how much of a fuss you kick I don't think they'll even get you to take out their trash.
Considering how you won't shut up about it, you seem insistent on failing that test spectacularly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, the story is that "It already happened". I have no idea why they would do anything like that, but that's the current situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a strange way to write "I can't prove it".
For someone who claims to have been given a government-granted welfare job you sure don't act like one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you have problems proving things, I recommend Curry-Howard Isomorphism. It'll solve your lack of progress with proof theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're the one who made extraordinary claims like being a robot. The issue with proving anything does not lie with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're creating 100 millipn gadgets, robots are doing large chunk of the work. After doing that for a long time, it gets difficult to recognize where robot-mode starts and humans begin. Thus some humans need to be in robot-mode. This is why we call them robots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it's genuinely not difficult. That a human does things based on routine does not qualify them for being called a robot.
You can, of course, continue to push this deluded narrative that you're a robot or gadget. I suspect that it's a sad attempt to claim that human norms and ethical boundaries don't apply to you, such as demanding that people you dislike sell off their vital organs to pay you money that you don't deserve. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that fails to win you users or court cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My website doesn't have any of the "nonsense" in it, and still users disappeared. The web site actually have no text content whatsoever, it's all 3d graphics.
Now you have some explaining to do. If the users didn't disappear because of the nonsense, you need to find another reason why users keep disappearing.
I'm waiting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"My website doesn't have any of the "nonsense" in it, and still users disappeared"
Yeah, court cases are not necessary to drive potential users away. Bad marketing, bad design, unusable interfaces, lack of any actual documentation, complete refusal to work with either other developers or the users themselves, not actually competing on any level with the sites you have identified as competitors... There's plenty of ways something can go wrong.
What's impressive with your complete failure is that not only have you insisted on doing all of these things at the same time, you're still refusing to address them years after you first started whining about them here and people informed you of where you're going wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
if you're looking for a failure, you'll always stumble into something. But the real solution is to look for what advantages the solution offered has.
perfection isn't about what failures you can avoid, but more about how well you can implement some specific requirements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But the real solution is to look for what advantages the solution offered has."
Of which you're provided next to nothing. Hence the lack of customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean its not enough that t is part of web3?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Web3" is not the selling point you think it is. Even if it was, the mere act of claiming that it is a part of "Web3" doesn't prove that it's Web3. You'd have to contribute something that convinces enough people to buy into the idea that Web3 is the future, and have people adopt it.
Meshpage's entire "value add" at the moment is claiming "nobody will ever commit copyright infringement with Meshpage, because nobody uses it". Even sketchy things like cryptocurrency and blockchain have some sort of use, inasmuch as they seem to gravitate towards the illegitimate extreme of the spectrum.
But at the end of the day, Meshpage could have some form of Web3-relevant value and people still might not use it. For one, your entire business plan seems to be nothing but boasting you have no users and using that fact to try and troll Techdirt... somehow. For two, people have the right to abstain from using Meshpage out of moral obligations. As in, "I refuse to give money to a monster who thinks raping people for their vital organs in the name of copyright."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have you ever thought of seeking medical help with your obsession of feeding trolls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is something of an obsession of his.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
why do you care what he does?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not everyone enjoys the sport of Where's Poochie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously you do, or you’d just scroll past instead of reading and replying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I said not everybody, not that I didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This, kids, is what's known as a "rhetorical" question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PUBG will win...
Thanks for this little piece of humor.
Right, if that was all there was to copyright litigation, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be tons of texts and armies of lawyers on the subject.
Ah, there they are. The lawyers, the defense points that you just said were "simply irrelevant". Funny how copyright litigation suddenly becomes a little more nuanced when you're the target, huh? You even listed one defense point as "that's not copyrightable" (math concepts).
Without at least a little bit of consistency, you're just exposing your hypocrisy.
Much like Krafton in their own lawsuit when they show two different things (sometimes not even vaguely similar except for the base concept: e.g. picture of body armor) and pretend they're exactly the same, or when they argue that non-copyrightable elements infringed on their copyright.
I would really like to see you get sued under your own standard of "date + reference to source". This would be entertaining. But it wouldn't be based on real laws.
BTW, your little overly-simplified standard here is also very easy to use as a defense: "Yes, I copied their material point by point... but I mentioned them in my own work so they can't sue me." It's not only naive, it's plain stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PUBG will win...
You just don’t understand copyright law very well, despite the article you’re commenting on giving a brief recap, do you?
Does PUBG have a patent on their game’s rules? Nope. It wasn’t original enough to get one. Patents protect ideas, but copyrights don’t. Copyrights only rotect the expression of an idea, the idea itself is unprotected.
Free Fire hasn’t cloned anything - except maybe reality. But reality isn’t copyrightable. People really do wear bullet-resistant armor on battlefields, and due to the shape of human bodies and colors used by the miitary, it all looks pretty similar. Depicting people on battlefields wearing realistic-looking armor is not protected by copyright. An individual image drawn by a 3-D artist is protected, but ONLY the image the artist drew - the idea of a soldier on a battlefield wearing body armor is not copyrightable, and someone else drawing their own image of the same idea has their own wholly separate copyright on the image they drew.
Similarity of independently created artist’s renditions of real world objects is utterly irrelevant to whether there is copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: PUBG will win...
You still cannot clone someone elses feature list, simply because (to you) feature list items look like ideas. Basically feature list items are fixed to a medium whenever someone built a product out from the "ideas" embedded in it. This medium will give copyright protection for the ideas. You cannot get patent protection without paying significant amount of money, but copyrights are always available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PUBG will win...
That hasn't stopped you from creating a modeling software like Blender's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: PUBG will win...
There's some techniques that help with the task:
1) glance techniques
2) clean-room techniques
3) allowing no access to competitor products
4) living in a cave with no outside world
5) no internet access
Basically there are some sacrifices that you need to do to be able to legally build software that does not infringe copyright of your competitors. But that's life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PUBG will win...
Never mind that none of these are defenses against copyright infringement, but the fact that you know Blender and Unreal Engine exist proves that you do not, in fact, live in a cave or have no Internet access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deja vu
Having played neither game I can’t comment with great expertise however looking at those screenshots I am struck by the similarities with half life 2. And I am sure those tanks look very like Serious Sam. If they win their case then sure they are then on the hook for copyright infringement from that set of games?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deja vu
Why would a Croatian team want to sue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal Battle Royale
Next you're going to say that because both games include big box store buildings, Walmart is going to join the suit for infringement of architectural design!
Seeing that, Ford, GM, Chrysler, and Subaru will join over images of the F-150, the Impala, the Voyager, and the Stella in both games.
... and upon seeing each other in the lawsuit, they will fly into a rage over "near clones" of each other's work and file charges against each of them as well.
At 47 separate parties (well short of the 100 maximum for a full game), the judge finally forbids any new parties from joining, as each new party is required to level charges against each existing party, and the briefs reached "physical weapon" size, not to mention silliness. For instance, the Ben&Jerry's vs Mattress Firm charges were particularly ... inventive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal Battle Royale
"Seeing that, Ford, GM, Chrysler, and Subaru will join over images of the F-150, the Impala, the Voyager, and the Stella in both games."
They did this already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s a Chinese knockoff PUBG. It should be a clear-cut infringement case. Instead y’all gotta act like almost any company going after infringers is being hysterical.
Ok then, I’ll just go over to the Ars Technica article on this same subject where they actually put in the work to discuss more of the similarities instead of writing them off as overly litigious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
pre-game lobby and interactive waiting area
Been there, done that. didn't get a t shirt though.
players air-dropping onto the map
This is a level in Halo 2. And Halo 3. Actually, Halo really likes airdropping people for some reason. Probably so they can show cool spaceships. shortly before you jump out of them. and somehow don't die.
the idea of "starting with nothing" and "scavenging for items
Lara Croft did it.
a play area with a shrinking "safe zone
This is in every old 2D platformer.
a particularly perilous "bombardment zone."
Also the platformers.
previous shooter games did not include the use of a frying pan."
TF2. Superhot.
Even allusions to PUBG's famous "Winner Winner Chicken Dinner" victory message
Don't they mean Guy Fieri's? Or perhaps they mean Kevin Spacey's? Of course, that victory message is so old that we can't even confidently say where it originated, though gambling in Vegas is the most common story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
TF2 and Superhot don’t have a frying pan that you can use as indestructible armor when it’s not equipped and os rather placed on your character’s butt, which if you look at the point made in the screenshot of the doc on the Ars article, that’s what it is. Freefire took this from PUBG.
In the context of Battle Royale games, it’s a signature part of PUBG. Another Battle Royale game alluding to the phrase, when taken alosode everything else, is pretty sus.
When you nitpick the smaller details as being in tons of other games, yes you can say it’s stupid. But if you put a Venn diagram of PUBG and FreeFire up, it would be rather close to a circle, IMO. FreeFire is a bootleg PUBG. It’s on the same level as other mobile app store shovelware. I don’t know why it’s so hard to understand why they went after FreeFire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They might have a point on some elements.
A frying pan is a pretty generic item with few differentiating features when looked from afar, but this one with double spouts and handles could be used an example of cloning...
There are way too many other examples of "identical" items that are clearly not identical though. Not to mention the items that not copyrightable elements to begin with.
I really pity lawyers who have to go through this list of garbage statements to make sure there is not at least one valid claim in an overall frivolous lawsuit.
As for the fact that these two games are similar overall, that is not a good copyright claim in itself. You can implement a game by copying another game's feature list point by point and not infringe on their copyright. It depends on several completely unrelated factors.
So we're back to the list of frivolous claims that might or might not include a few valid ones... probably by accident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"the idea of "starting with nothing" and "scavenging for items""
"a play area with a shrinking "safe zone""
"previous shooter games did not include the use of a frying pan.""
Again, just a reminder to everyone that players being dropped into a constantly shrinking play area where they have to scavenge for weapons other than the item they start with, which in some cases is only a frying pan, is the central idea of the manga/novel/movie Battle Royale, from which all these ideas are taken.
If people are going to say that anyone using these ideas from PUBG should be prosecuted, they are saying that PUBG needs to be taken to the cleaners first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It should be a clear-cut infringement case."
Infringement of what? The ideas they ripped off from a manga?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What infringement? Copyright has never protected ideas, and similarities in expression are unavoidable when both games are depicting real world objects.
If similarity of those objects was copyright infringement, both game companies would lose a copyright lawsuit if sued by a gun or body armor manufacturer, because their in-game items look similar to product design drawings of actual real world items.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Massive ego
"We mimicked nature and civilization and now they've mimicked us! Whaaaa!!!"
No, you morons, they mimicked nature and civilization too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Massive ego
You can detect blatant copyright infringement by adding designed errors to your work. If the would-be copycat vendor mimicked nature and civilization, they wouldn't have the same errors than what you inserted to your work arbitrarily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shut up, Meg.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Massive ego
And of course you are demonstrably wrong.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Massive ego
And you wonder why nobody uses Meshpage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Massive ego
I never said that I would be using these recommended practices myself. It was your problem that you couldn't proof that other people are copying your product, and the practice recommended would squarely target that problem. But maybe I have different way of detecting blatant copyright infringements in my work. These evil practices that kill quality of the product might not be needed in meshpage. (good way to do it is to keep the errors subtle enough that end users don't see them, but large enough that courts can see them from miles away) ((if customers are seeing your quality, you have failed))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Massive ego
I can't say that's a surprise, you've made it clear you won't hold yourself to the same stricter copyright laws as you hold everyone else.
You know, people can read up on your lies via your comment history. You were the one who said "You can detect blatant copyright infringement by adding designed errors to your work". Anyone in any form of industry, on the other hand, knows that compromising your own product like you do with Meshpage makes it worse.
Nah, mate, you genuinely don't. If you had that sort of "different way" you'd have realized that the 3d model you used in your tech demo was illegally sourced from Scott Cawthon's work. You'd have realized this if your detection methods actually worked even if you purchased it from someone else. (I personally doubt this story, but the fact that a grifter like you got scammed by a scammer is intensely satisfying.)
Everyone here can see the quality of what you offer. You have failed, Tero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Massive ego
It's a copyright infringement detection, not a fraud detection.
Basically I can't do anything if someone tries to illegally scam me.
But blatant copyright infringement is visible by examining the copyright notice embedded in the work. Guess how many copyright notices scott cawthon's work had?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Massive ego
And it failed on the copyright infringement detection test, too, because any such filtering system would have been able to check the Internet for identical copies that exist. Now you might argue that such a system would be unfeasible, expensive, and horrendously broken from a programmer's perspective, and you'd be right. Except that it's exactly the kind of shitty demand you keep making of platforms like YouTube to detect infringement beforehand.
Cry me a fucking river. By stricter copyright laws, you should have seen this "illegal scam" coming and taken steps to prevent it from happening at all. The fact that you claim you couldn't do anything is not a defense.
How many copyright notices did the original mermaid statue have, in that town that you claimed had a copyright claim on every mermaid statue that exists in Europe? Was it on the statue? Was the copyright notice available anywhere at all? Your claim that a lack of copyright notice is not a valid defense, especially since works automatically qualify for copyright from the point of implementation. By stricter copyright law, you'd still have to defend yourself in court or be subject to the fines you want everyone else to pay. But we all know that's not happening because you're a hypocritical scumbag who rapes old women for prostitute money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We stand on the shoulders of those who came before , everything is a remix, most games share similar mechanics since 3d engines came in with the pc, health meters, weapon upgrades, respawn online players in for get revived by another player, social. Classes, medic, soldier, engineer, sniper, picking up weapons from other enemy's or getting special class abilitys,
Bots that behave like humans, with different levels of skill, online matchmaking, map selection to play with friends,
If someone made a fps with only totally original mechanics that were never seen before most people would not play it
as it would be strange or hard to learn
The only thing I see that might be original about pubg is the closing circle forcing players to move closer
otherwise pubg is a basic generic online fps in a large map with many buildings which contain random objects or weapons to pickup
When a game is a big hit There'll be other games that want to copy it and that's fine as long as they make their own assets and art
Fortnite is a big hit because it adds in non realistic characters to the battle arena formula and its free so there's no barrior to entry and it appeals to younger players
It veers away from the standard grim realistic formula
There's plenty of games that use random items as mellee weapons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]