Who's going to bring that lawsuit, you? Don't make me laugh.
Nice thing about gdpr is that I don't even need to sue the bastards myself. It's enough that someone in the world sues them.
But if these folks have troubles implementing copyright's rules, their gdpr implementation isn't going to fly too far either. GDPR is significantly more difficult to implement properly than copyright laws. It's just that copyright has been around long time, and if your developers couldn't get these "copyright maximalist principles" implemented in that time, they have no fucking way of implementing the harsh demands of the GDPR legislation. The government tried to encourage market participants to implement the rules, by placing 10 million bucks fines for anyone who does not conform the strict legal rules. The experience with vendors ignoring copyright maximalist practices kinda hinted to the direction that proper fines are necessary.
It's still significantly better than what you can do. All we've heard from you is trolling and bashing systems that are ready for customers. When exactly you got your systems ready to be used by real customers?
It's still able to display 3d models on webpages, if you failed to notice that minor feature. This is still significantly better than what you are able to do in your own web page. We don't even need to take Blender or Maya as examples, but focusing on what YOU can contribute to the well-being of the internet phenomenon.
You called every service under stricter copyright rules by your precious RIAA infringing.
Stricter rules are necessary or web development is completely impossible when the end result has more gaps than your average cheese.
I've already seen how you "preserve copyright" on your site.
Yeah, like displaying copyright notices and giving credit to the people who contributed to the horror.
Although the term wasn't trademarked, using that in the name would appear to be a deliberate attempt at confusing customers, for the direct purpose of profiting from the confusion.
Trademarks exist even though the original authors have not registered their name. Basically trademark registration is optional, if the name has been consistently used in the marketplace, then it gains trademark protection, even if you didn't register it. Of course registration have some benefits, but it's not necessary if usage of the name is otherwise consistent in the marketplace. Registration is more for checking that you don't accidentally violate someone else's trademarks.
> It is copyright infringement if they copy the product made by someone else.
You're going to be waiting for a long, long time before Blender or Pixar gets sued for copyright infringement.
if copyright argument doesn't work, can always base your lawsuit to GDPR. There's like 10 million bucks damage awards waiting if they forgot to implement popups to their web site...
Well, then. I guess to satisfy you, we can regard Meshpage as software built on a foundation of piracy and copyright infringement.
Always focusing on the negative aspects and ignoring the advantages that have been built to meshpage. While there are rough spots in it, like all other services, calling it infringing is kinda harsh and unfounded. Maybe you should build your own web site and watch how strong copyright you can preserve in your site.
> "not because the customer already purchased the same product from another copycat vendor"
Some of the projects you whine about being "copycats" existed long before your did.
I think you missed the whole point. Again problems with the "same product" requirement. It's not copyright infringement if they just try to compete wth their own product. It is copyright infringement if they copy the product made by someone else.
You've already failed that goal under your own definitions.
RIAA or MPAA have not yet found it interesting enough to ask google to block the site or add it to notorious web properties list. While it would be a sign of pride to be included in their notorious lists or get blocked by google, I consider it a success of copyright maximalist practices that RIAA or MPAA do not need to block our service. When we have no content owned by RIAA/MPAA in the site, they have no teeth against us, and their tiger will be loud but toothless.
If you think Blender and Pixar copied so much of your tech
I thnk you missed the keywords "the same product"... blender and pixar do not have the same product than meshpage.
you're more than welcome to bring them to court and accuse them of copyright infringement.
Nice thing about copyright is that I don't need to sue them myself. Its enough that someone in the world sues pirate services and forces their customers to find more legal service. All legal services that are actually offering a product to customers will benefit.
copyright does not guarantee you money if you spend time doing failed development attempts or making poor business decisions.
At least it guarantees that the reason for failed marketing push is with my own actions, the offered product or product placement, and not because the customer already purchased the same product from another copycat vendor...
This is, of course, also ignoring the fact that Meshpage would have to be destroyed too
This is true. Meshpage will also be destroyed at some point. I just hope that my copyright implementation is good enough that it happens later rather than sooner. All more reason to follow copyright maximalist position.
You realize that initiatives like The Pirate Bay and Sci-Hub are still very much active, right?
All the services do not need to be destroyed at the same time. The hand of the law works slowly, but once it finds your service is full of pirated material, your product will be destroyed. The order of destruction just depends on the strength of the copyright that the service authors are able to use. (though I think that pirate bay should have been destroyed long ago)
This plan of yours still doesn't solve the "problem" of Blender and Pixar and 3dsmax still being legal options.
All copyrighted works have problems implementing copyright laws. Blender and Pixar are not exceptions. Their products will be destroyed too. It just depends on the strength of their copyright when that will happen. Legal eagles are constantly inventing new legal instruments which force product developers to implement new practices and keep the wheels of the progress running. EU's legal eagles invented GDPR and now they're refining copyright laws. Once your product fails to implement newest copyright rules, its time for the product to disappear from the market. (even the EU parlament couldn't implement GDPR rules on their own web page yet)
"Destroying" pirate services will not flood meshpage.org with the pageviews and users you're desperately hoping for.
Destroying pirates is still the easiest way to get "movement" happening in the marketplace.
Whether a game can involve robots is not a work of authorship.
This isn't true. Robots are clearly one element in the feature list of such game. And my whole position is that feature lists are protected by copyright, even if the actual list is not "fixed" in a "medium". The feature list gets "fixed in medium" status when the game source code is implemented, even if the features themselves are described in the source code as very verbose manner, where its not immediately clear which line of source code implements which feature. The feature lists are special because any implementation will have those features fixed in a medium.
If you couldn't then copyright would effectively be a patent on the game itself
This is avoided because only the original expression is protected. So if you create a football game, the football rules are not "original", since you just reimplemented already established football rules. This original requirement filters out attempts to copyright already established game rules.
Only the stuff that are original are protected. So if you made football game that has robots playing against humans, then only the robot selection gets copyright protection, not the whole football game. And thus when you "clone" other people's football games, only the decision that robots are playing would be dangerous in your cloned game. This all comes from the "original" keyword in copyright laws.
Cloning established football rules is dangerous for another reason. Usually the sports organisations are very protexctive of their logos and look and feel of their trademarks. Cloning those trademarked sports organsation's assets would be natural next step after football rules have been implemented, to make it look like "real football game". But that tendency to copy real world football games is leading to dangerous area in intellectual property.
it would increase costs to the point of impossibility. Therefore older products have to be purged from the market so developers can exclusively provide support for their newer products
Actually, you're focusing on slightly wrong area of the market, when you consider only single vendor's products in this... This applies to all products in the world. I.e. if vcr video recorders are being dumped, then it gives space for dvd players and cd-roms, i.e. old products are being purged and new ones replace them. But the vcr's and dvd's do not need to come from the same vendor. I.e. the market as a whole is constantly purging old products and replacing them with new ones.
vcr's and dvd players are not copyrighted works, because they have hardware component also included. But the same needs to work also with copyrighted works, i.e. old books are being dumped to trashcan, and newer books and voice books replace them. Copyrighted works also need to get products disappear from the market so that new products have a chance to shine. This cannot happen if copyright rules allows people to use very old works. Only the most popular ones are required to survive, not all works like some anti-copyright people think about 70 year copyright duration.
I bet you’d kill a kid for tracing Mickey Mouse out of a coloring book.
This has happened in finland recently. Some company called "marimekko" carbon-copied some paintings from a gallery's painting display book, and created curtains from the outlines. The model was significantly recognizable and the artist who painted the paintings sued marimekko in court for plagiarism and copyright infringement. The company got bad reputation as a result.
So your supposed situation isn't that some young kid does it from colouring book, but instead commercial companies with millions in sales does it and get sued for it.
This is true. But I have a good trick for it. I don't offer licenses to the content I create. Download links are available, but no licenses are offered. I'll have to see how many people will illegally use the product.
all of your competent competitors live in the same real world I do, and can communicate with their customers and developers quite easily.
It's not competent to do copyright infringement and download some crappy communication platform made by someone else. Basically if you're not paying for it, it's either created by slaves or it's illegal.
All the cool people create these services themselves. It's just ok to reject service because the feature has not been developed yet.
I'm glad I live in the real world where these exist
Internet also exists, it's just too bad that all the content available in internet is also illegal to use. It just shows lack of morals if you use internet's content that some other people created, instead of creating the content yourself.
then you come in here and whine like the deluded fool you are when your incompetent failure leads to less interest than your competitors.
well i haven't developed messaging system to my web page. What you request would require availability of some kind of messaging channel between development team and end users. Such system does not exist.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice thing about gdpr is that I don't even need to sue the bastards myself. It's enough that someone in the world sues them.
But if these folks have troubles implementing copyright's rules, their gdpr implementation isn't going to fly too far either. GDPR is significantly more difficult to implement properly than copyright laws. It's just that copyright has been around long time, and if your developers couldn't get these "copyright maximalist principles" implemented in that time, they have no fucking way of implementing the harsh demands of the GDPR legislation. The government tried to encourage market participants to implement the rules, by placing 10 million bucks fines for anyone who does not conform the strict legal rules. The experience with vendors ignoring copyright maximalist practices kinda hinted to the direction that proper fines are necessary.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's still significantly better than what you can do. All we've heard from you is trolling and bashing systems that are ready for customers. When exactly you got your systems ready to be used by real customers?
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's still able to display 3d models on webpages, if you failed to notice that minor feature. This is still significantly better than what you are able to do in your own web page. We don't even need to take Blender or Maya as examples, but focusing on what YOU can contribute to the well-being of the internet phenomenon.
Stricter rules are necessary or web development is completely impossible when the end result has more gaps than your average cheese.
Yeah, like displaying copyright notices and giving credit to the people who contributed to the horror.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re:
Trademarks exist even though the original authors have not registered their name. Basically trademark registration is optional, if the name has been consistently used in the marketplace, then it gains trademark protection, even if you didn't register it. Of course registration have some benefits, but it's not necessary if usage of the name is otherwise consistent in the marketplace. Registration is more for checking that you don't accidentally violate someone else's trademarks.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
if copyright argument doesn't work, can always base your lawsuit to GDPR. There's like 10 million bucks damage awards waiting if they forgot to implement popups to their web site...
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Always focusing on the negative aspects and ignoring the advantages that have been built to meshpage. While there are rough spots in it, like all other services, calling it infringing is kinda harsh and unfounded. Maybe you should build your own web site and watch how strong copyright you can preserve in your site.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you missed the whole point. Again problems with the "same product" requirement. It's not copyright infringement if they just try to compete wth their own product. It is copyright infringement if they copy the product made by someone else.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
RIAA or MPAA have not yet found it interesting enough to ask google to block the site or add it to notorious web properties list. While it would be a sign of pride to be included in their notorious lists or get blocked by google, I consider it a success of copyright maximalist practices that RIAA or MPAA do not need to block our service. When we have no content owned by RIAA/MPAA in the site, they have no teeth against us, and their tiger will be loud but toothless.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thnk you missed the keywords "the same product"... blender and pixar do not have the same product than meshpage.
Nice thing about copyright is that I don't need to sue them myself. Its enough that someone in the world sues pirate services and forces their customers to find more legal service. All legal services that are actually offering a product to customers will benefit.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At least it guarantees that the reason for failed marketing push is with my own actions, the offered product or product placement, and not because the customer already purchased the same product from another copycat vendor...
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is true. Meshpage will also be destroyed at some point. I just hope that my copyright implementation is good enough that it happens later rather than sooner. All more reason to follow copyright maximalist position.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All the services do not need to be destroyed at the same time. The hand of the law works slowly, but once it finds your service is full of pirated material, your product will be destroyed. The order of destruction just depends on the strength of the copyright that the service authors are able to use. (though I think that pirate bay should have been destroyed long ago)
All copyrighted works have problems implementing copyright laws. Blender and Pixar are not exceptions. Their products will be destroyed too. It just depends on the strength of their copyright when that will happen. Legal eagles are constantly inventing new legal instruments which force product developers to implement new practices and keep the wheels of the progress running. EU's legal eagles invented GDPR and now they're refining copyright laws. Once your product fails to implement newest copyright rules, its time for the product to disappear from the market. (even the EU parlament couldn't implement GDPR rules on their own web page yet)
Destroying pirates is still the easiest way to get "movement" happening in the marketplace.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cloning games is evil...
This isn't true. Robots are clearly one element in the feature list of such game. And my whole position is that feature lists are protected by copyright, even if the actual list is not "fixed" in a "medium". The feature list gets "fixed in medium" status when the game source code is implemented, even if the features themselves are described in the source code as very verbose manner, where its not immediately clear which line of source code implements which feature. The feature lists are special because any implementation will have those features fixed in a medium.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Cloning games is evil...
This is avoided because only the original expression is protected. So if you create a football game, the football rules are not "original", since you just reimplemented already established football rules. This original requirement filters out attempts to copyright already established game rules.
Only the stuff that are original are protected. So if you made football game that has robots playing against humans, then only the robot selection gets copyright protection, not the whole football game. And thus when you "clone" other people's football games, only the decision that robots are playing would be dangerous in your cloned game. This all comes from the "original" keyword in copyright laws.
Cloning established football rules is dangerous for another reason. Usually the sports organisations are very protexctive of their logos and look and feel of their trademarks. Cloning those trademarked sports organsation's assets would be natural next step after football rules have been implemented, to make it look like "real football game". But that tendency to copy real world football games is leading to dangerous area in intellectual property.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, you're focusing on slightly wrong area of the market, when you consider only single vendor's products in this... This applies to all products in the world. I.e. if vcr video recorders are being dumped, then it gives space for dvd players and cd-roms, i.e. old products are being purged and new ones replace them. But the vcr's and dvd's do not need to come from the same vendor. I.e. the market as a whole is constantly purging old products and replacing them with new ones.
vcr's and dvd players are not copyrighted works, because they have hardware component also included. But the same needs to work also with copyrighted works, i.e. old books are being dumped to trashcan, and newer books and voice books replace them. Copyrighted works also need to get products disappear from the market so that new products have a chance to shine. This cannot happen if copyright rules allows people to use very old works. Only the most popular ones are required to survive, not all works like some anti-copyright people think about 70 year copyright duration.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
This has happened in finland recently. Some company called "marimekko" carbon-copied some paintings from a gallery's painting display book, and created curtains from the outlines. The model was significantly recognizable and the artist who painted the paintings sued marimekko in court for plagiarism and copyright infringement. The company got bad reputation as a result.
So your supposed situation isn't that some young kid does it from colouring book, but instead commercial companies with millions in sales does it and get sued for it.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is there url for the conditions that the default one places?
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is true. But I have a good trick for it. I don't offer licenses to the content I create. Download links are available, but no licenses are offered. I'll have to see how many people will illegally use the product.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not competent to do copyright infringement and download some crappy communication platform made by someone else. Basically if you're not paying for it, it's either created by slaves or it's illegal.
All the cool people create these services themselves. It's just ok to reject service because the feature has not been developed yet.
Internet also exists, it's just too bad that all the content available in internet is also illegal to use. It just shows lack of morals if you use internet's content that some other people created, instead of creating the content yourself.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
well i haven't developed messaging system to my web page. What you request would require availability of some kind of messaging channel between development team and end users. Such system does not exist.
Next >>