When you deal with reality, most of your arguments immediately fall apart.
It doesn't really matter. I released new version of builder on friday and noone here even noticed the big news. You would notice if blender releases their half year of coding, so why would you ignore it when I release a new version?
there's a huge number of things that are open to opinion rather than verifiable fact,
This isn't true. The law explicitly gives comprehensive list of things to check when checking copyright. 1) if you're the owner of the copyright 2) if not, check if you have license 3) or check that the material is not being used at all.
There's no opinion in this pattern, only verifiable facts available. Every failure in the pattern is clear problem.
You can show that you bought a license; you haven’t proven that the license was legally valid.
That's why there needs to be practices available where content is taken offline whenever there's doubt about the content's license validity. DMCA's notice and takedown is supposedly teaching vendors to do license activity properly, once they learn DMCA stuff, the copyright's same system shouldn't be too difficult.
My pattern is still tons better than your average pirate's.
Even our local tram needs to have officers checking tram tickets. They checked, found no problems. Which means I'm actually buying proper tickets. If I had significant copyright problems, wouldn't you think I would also skip tram tickets?
I'm of course relying on the license received from sketchfab. Basically after I can show valid licensing activity, the burden of proving copyright infringement moves to the other side and it's YOUR responsibility to prove that copyright infringement happened. And you're seriously lacking with your responsibility.
According to your version of reality, it's up to you to prove you had bought a licence before using the material.
Yes, and I can show that by referring to the license that sketchfab offered to me when I licensed the material from sketchfab. Sketchfab's shop decides under what conditions the material can be licensed even though the licensing contract is between me and the author of the model. Note that I wouldn't have information at that point, how the model was created or what copyright issues are involved in creation of the model. It's only techdirt who revealed that there might be more copyright issues involved, and when that was revealed, I immediately removed the model from my web site. Thus all damages are limited and it's at worst innocent infringement. And that worst case even assumes that the creator of the model committed direct copyright infringement (which you still haven't proved). You should move your trolling to sketchfab or the author of the model, not towards tp.
Because unlike you, I’m aware of Scott Cawthon’s work and familiar with the design of the Springtrap character you ripped off
that doesn't matter one bit. You simply cannot know what kind of contracts Cawthon did or how they're selling rights to the characters. You just assume that the guy who created the 3d model has no permission to the model he created. Your assumptions are (as always) broken.
Sorry dude, I like the art I pay for to be entertaining and history shows that all the greatest art "homages" in some way.
Well, every time this "greatest art" homages something, they just lose ownership of their own work. Today's news item is the Quentin Tarantino is being sued for selling NFT of his own work. So even if you actually created the material yourself, these sales activities might not be allowed.
How do you know? We have no idea what kind of clean room techniques these people were employing to get this product done. We shouldn't assume that other people creating products are some kind of idiots who cannot understand copyright's fine details. This kind of assumption is always going wrong. It's better to trust the shops, shopkeepers and product developers who you rely on. You wouldn't purchase their product, if you didn't trust them to do good product, so the fact that we actually licensed the product from these people means that we actually trust them to be valid product developers.
TP is the sort of copyright fanatic who thinks people should be selling their organs to pay for his contributions to society.
Guess that would be better than the current situation where contributions are not met with anything other than harrassment and ridicule.
Or if you think the contributions have already been compensated, I can point out that $45 that is the total revenue associated to the activity, isn't enough to buy a movie ticket.
But hey, you keep telling yourself that a 6-year-old kid who traces a Disney character out of a coloring book or a YouTuber who makes a movie review using clips from the movie itself needs to be punished with massive life-destroying fines and/or jail sentences.
Well, the solution to this problem is to obtain the actual licenses. Keeping the brand identity up and running might have some costs involved, to the tune of millions, so it's just fair that the people who benefit from the brand will pay license fees for using the brand to sell products to children. Basically you get access to millions of investments with a small license fee (usually 10k or something), so the companies who are building bigger brand identity can divide the 1 million investment between 100 shops that carry the products containing the brand.
This "divide costs between users" is what you copyright infringers never understand properly. If there's significant number of freeriders in the system, the legal shops that actually take licenses will need to pay significantly more and then pirates will be complaining that the license fees are too large, even when there's someone paying 1 million bucks for the priviledge of providing brand identity products for your shops.
To me it looked like the model was independently created. There probably wasn't any game or product that has the exact same model available. A real game would have fixed some of the bugs from the model.
So this looks like similar situation than what happened with angry birds knitting instructions my mom found from a shop. We still don't know if the shop had a license from Rovio to sell stuffed toys plans with that branding...
I dunno why someone like Cawthon would be involved at all in this? Basically I have insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in the paragraph and the claims are therefore denied.
The time spent writing software (or creating any product) has no direct correlation to its usefulness or value.
This might be slightly inaccurate. Basically time spent is tightly linked to quality of the product. More rough edges have been smoothened out when lots of time was spent on the product. Thus quality is important aspect relative to time spent.
But popular products have another strange feature. The popularity requires high quality. It's not so that high quality products get more popular, but it's other way around. The globe and the government requires that popular products are of high quality and no company is able to bypass that regulation. Basically when popular products gets significant amount of failures, the end users polling the support phone lines will increase to the level that is unmanageable. And government has seen this many times, so they try to prevent it from happening again.
So popularity and high quality are linked. Thus (by composition) popular products have a requirement to spend large amount of time in their creation. Thus only large teams can create popular products.
Thus if you want to create popular products, you need to spend significant amount of time in the creation process. Small teams are heavily struggling with this requirement. Thus also meshpage and gameapi builder are struggling with this requirement.
in modern web browsers function the way they do because of copyright law.
Would you consider that a feature where browsers actively prevented users from downloading large amount of data from the internet, would prevent significant amount of copyright infringements if browser vendors managed to get the technology adopted as widely as web browsers have been?
Basically this is the case currently, i.e. browser features are preventing large scale download operations and are actively replacing them with downloads from known legal areas of the world. Basically browser's sandbox protects http/https transfers, actively making them (more) legal(because it's not distribute, but only display), while download manager encourages people to use
more convinient http/https download feature instead of the more cumbersome download manager which allows saving the data to local hard disk.
This kind of gimmick has no other purpose than prevent copyright infringement.
it will be hard to convince anyone of a legal basis for one at this point
Except that stephen gave the legal basis in a golden plate, served directly to emphasize that their business has been based on "allowing people to infringe". There's only very small step from this flexibility, to the act of encouraging infringement to happen. And when they instruct their followers to commit copyright infringement, it's at least secondary infringement. It's simply not acceptable that companies actively encourage their user base to commit copyright infringements, even if there was significant demand for such activity.
Basically we could find that any company that builds a system that relies on user's illegal activity, i.e. company implements all legal modules, but leaves illegal pieces for end users to fill, is guilty of secondary infringement, because customers of such company often has no other choice than commit direct copyright infringement. It's either that, or their valuable gadgets will not work properly as the vendor company has designed it to work. This is why requiring end users to fill in known-to-be-illegal-blocks is considered secondary infringement. The product has been configured for piracy, and thus the product itself is illegal and users who opt to purchase such product will be in big legal trouble.
This kind of "generalized accusations" is what your friends at Malibu Media regularly gave to the court
Do you actually remember how far this line of questioning went before judge put a stop to it? Given that Malibu's attempts at this failed miserably, why do you think you can do it better than what Malibu's professional lawyer trolls are able to do?
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
there's a devlog in itch.io about it.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't really matter. I released new version of builder on friday and noone here even noticed the big news. You would notice if blender releases their half year of coding, so why would you ignore it when I release a new version?
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re:
This isn't true. The law explicitly gives comprehensive list of things to check when checking copyright. 1) if you're the owner of the copyright 2) if not, check if you have license 3) or check that the material is not being used at all.
There's no opinion in this pattern, only verifiable facts available. Every failure in the pattern is clear problem.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
That's why there needs to be practices available where content is taken offline whenever there's doubt about the content's license validity. DMCA's notice and takedown is supposedly teaching vendors to do license activity properly, once they learn DMCA stuff, the copyright's same system shouldn't be too difficult.
My pattern is still tons better than your average pirate's.
Even our local tram needs to have officers checking tram tickets. They checked, found no problems. Which means I'm actually buying proper tickets. If I had significant copyright problems, wouldn't you think I would also skip tram tickets?
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
I'm of course relying on the license received from sketchfab. Basically after I can show valid licensing activity, the burden of proving copyright infringement moves to the other side and it's YOUR responsibility to prove that copyright infringement happened. And you're seriously lacking with your responsibility.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and I can show that by referring to the license that sketchfab offered to me when I licensed the material from sketchfab. Sketchfab's shop decides under what conditions the material can be licensed even though the licensing contract is between me and the author of the model. Note that I wouldn't have information at that point, how the model was created or what copyright issues are involved in creation of the model. It's only techdirt who revealed that there might be more copyright issues involved, and when that was revealed, I immediately removed the model from my web site. Thus all damages are limited and it's at worst innocent infringement. And that worst case even assumes that the creator of the model committed direct copyright infringement (which you still haven't proved). You should move your trolling to sketchfab or the author of the model, not towards tp.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
that doesn't matter one bit. You simply cannot know what kind of contracts Cawthon did or how they're selling rights to the characters. You just assume that the guy who created the 3d model has no permission to the model he created. Your assumptions are (as always) broken.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re:
Well, every time this "greatest art" homages something, they just lose ownership of their own work. Today's news item is the Quentin Tarantino is being sued for selling NFT of his own work. So even if you actually created the material yourself, these sales activities might not be allowed.
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh look, another turd in bowl...
So you're calling $45 for 8 years of hard work to be ripping you off? You actually wanted the combined effort of the whole world for free?
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
How do you know? We have no idea what kind of clean room techniques these people were employing to get this product done. We shouldn't assume that other people creating products are some kind of idiots who cannot understand copyright's fine details. This kind of assumption is always going wrong. It's better to trust the shops, shopkeepers and product developers who you rely on. You wouldn't purchase their product, if you didn't trust them to do good product, so the fact that we actually licensed the product from these people means that we actually trust them to be valid product developers.
On the post: EU's Latest Internet Regulatory Madness: Destroying Internet Security With Its Digital Identity Framework
Re: Crap like this...
The european union might be slightly larger than your average village.
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh look, another turd in bowl...
Guess that would be better than the current situation where contributions are not met with anything other than harrassment and ridicule.
Or if you think the contributions have already been compensated, I can point out that $45 that is the total revenue associated to the activity, isn't enough to buy a movie ticket.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
Well, the solution to this problem is to obtain the actual licenses. Keeping the brand identity up and running might have some costs involved, to the tune of millions, so it's just fair that the people who benefit from the brand will pay license fees for using the brand to sell products to children. Basically you get access to millions of investments with a small license fee (usually 10k or something), so the companies who are building bigger brand identity can divide the 1 million investment between 100 shops that carry the products containing the brand.
This "divide costs between users" is what you copyright infringers never understand properly. If there's significant number of freeriders in the system, the legal shops that actually take licenses will need to pay significantly more and then pirates will be complaining that the license fees are too large, even when there's someone paying 1 million bucks for the priviledge of providing brand identity products for your shops.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
To me it looked like the model was independently created. There probably wasn't any game or product that has the exact same model available. A real game would have fixed some of the bugs from the model.
So this looks like similar situation than what happened with angry birds knitting instructions my mom found from a shop. We still don't know if the shop had a license from Rovio to sell stuffed toys plans with that branding...
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
I dunno why someone like Cawthon would be involved at all in this? Basically I have insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in the paragraph and the claims are therefore denied.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This might be slightly inaccurate. Basically time spent is tightly linked to quality of the product. More rough edges have been smoothened out when lots of time was spent on the product. Thus quality is important aspect relative to time spent.
But popular products have another strange feature. The popularity requires high quality. It's not so that high quality products get more popular, but it's other way around. The globe and the government requires that popular products are of high quality and no company is able to bypass that regulation. Basically when popular products gets significant amount of failures, the end users polling the support phone lines will increase to the level that is unmanageable. And government has seen this many times, so they try to prevent it from happening again.
So popularity and high quality are linked. Thus (by composition) popular products have a requirement to spend large amount of time in their creation. Thus only large teams can create popular products.
Thus if you want to create popular products, you need to spend significant amount of time in the creation process. Small teams are heavily struggling with this requirement. Thus also meshpage and gameapi builder are struggling with this requirement.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
Would you consider that a feature where browsers actively prevented users from downloading large amount of data from the internet, would prevent significant amount of copyright infringements if browser vendors managed to get the technology adopted as widely as web browsers have been?
Basically this is the case currently, i.e. browser features are preventing large scale download operations and are actively replacing them with downloads from known legal areas of the world. Basically browser's sandbox protects http/https transfers, actively making them (more) legal(because it's not distribute, but only display), while download manager encourages people to use
more convinient http/https download feature instead of the more cumbersome download manager which allows saving the data to local hard disk.
This kind of gimmick has no other purpose than prevent copyright infringement.
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: Re:
Except that stephen gave the legal basis in a golden plate, served directly to emphasize that their business has been based on "allowing people to infringe". There's only very small step from this flexibility, to the act of encouraging infringement to happen. And when they instruct their followers to commit copyright infringement, it's at least secondary infringement. It's simply not acceptable that companies actively encourage their user base to commit copyright infringements, even if there was significant demand for such activity.
Basically we could find that any company that builds a system that relies on user's illegal activity, i.e. company implements all legal modules, but leaves illegal pieces for end users to fill, is guilty of secondary infringement, because customers of such company often has no other choice than commit direct copyright infringement. It's either that, or their valuable gadgets will not work properly as the vendor company has designed it to work. This is why requiring end users to fill in known-to-be-illegal-blocks is considered secondary infringement. The product has been configured for piracy, and thus the product itself is illegal and users who opt to purchase such product will be in big legal trouble.
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re: Re: Re:
A step out of the system is required. You have read Gödel, Escher, Bach from Hofstadster?
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you actually remember how far this line of questioning went before judge put a stop to it? Given that Malibu's attempts at this failed miserably, why do you think you can do it better than what Malibu's professional lawyer trolls are able to do?
Next >>