No, I actually licensed it from some internet vendor. You cannot consider proper licensing activity as "rip off" or any other illegal stuff.
Your Cawthon accusation is in very shaky grounds since you need to assume that the original developer of the 3d model actually 1) does not have license to do it, 2) and that they used enough of Cawthon's material that it crosses the illegal line. I don't think you have either of those proven when you have been focusing on TP's actions, and not considered what other people need to do to get the result that you want. Basically your primary infringer is missing, and you can only claim secondary hot air claims.
The specificity of that Madonna reference leads me to believe
You can believe anything you want, most of it is just broken beyond repair. You still cannot recognize important information from non-relevant factors. Specificity just means there's some history behind it, you cannot really give out guilty verdicts based on such information. Easy way to avoid such accusations is to mention that the Madonna problem isn't actually in our system, but someone else's. So your guilty verdict is pointed to wrong direction. I would assume that the direction of guilty arrow would be one of the key parameters when you're accusing people of copyright infringement. Basically unfounded accusations shouldn't be given forward, and you yourself have stuff to explain when you cannot point your arrows to right direction.
Re: Oh look, other companies and/or a HUGE market opportunity...
I mean what could possibly go wrong with having a third party do an on demand, on-site audit of your systems looking for any possible infringement?
Maybe your computer systems shouldn't be filled with pictures of Madonna without her permission? You aren't yet keeping your systems clean like the audit would happen tomorrow morning 9am when you're still sleeping?
That's a new one. You failed because you decided that doing things the sensible way was too easy?
How did you plan to publish software that you spent less than 2 weeks writing? Basically such small effort will be rejected because they're too easy tasks. Proper way to do this is to create something larger. To get it larger, you need to reinvent something that already exist.
If you insist on trying to reinvent everything from scratch instead of utilising accepted standards, sure.
reinventing everything from scratch is necessary evil. Promoting the progress of science and useful arts. Without reinvention the project would simply be too easy for experienced developer like myself. First step at the beginning of the project is to peel layers of onion until the project size is correct. The level of investment you can expect for your project is related to how many technology layers you removed at the beginning of the project.
Linus Torvalds killed his whole computer system with this layer peeling, and he had to build operating system from scratch. Now you claim he's some kind of hero, because he reinvented software that was already available (implemented by unix and windows and macs already)... Linus is just a master of removing unnecessary software layers.
I didn't go that far, I consider programming languages and operating systems to be outside the scope of my projects. Instead I stopped at the opengl layer, that seemed to have enough low level stuff available that there's plenty of fun reinventing the technology. And I was right. The level of reinvention was placed just correctly, given that I managed to implement full system in just 8 years.
Since they're still around, what you say is not true.
This is kinda bad argument, given that stephen's exact words are "Photoshop has been “allowing” people to infringe copyrights since the ’90s.". This pretty much implies that they should be next in line for copyright witch hunt.
People can point to a huge number of things built with your more direct claimed competitors.
This depends heavily what exactly you consider to be direct competitors of my software.
Basically if you count only 4 most popular works, your statement might be true.
But my real competition can be found from ludumdare, where there's 4500 gaming projects which are trying to create technologies that can compete in the marketplace.
Noone really cares about the top 4 players, it's the large mass of gaming projects that you need to compete against.
people are still using Blender instead of scrambling to kiss your ass.
You can always choose otherwise -- to show off your determination and go against the flow. Next week you'll just download builder and create some 3d models.
all because you believe all copying (regardless of context) is copyright infringement.
This is what the law says. Basically there's only 2 alternative ways to get permission to use some copyrighted work: either you created the material yourself, or you properly licensed the material. Any other context dependent crap is just illegal. The law has declared these two alternatives to be the complete list of possible ways how to get permission, so that any further context is not required when doing legal determination of copyright infringement. The law explicitly says that your "context dependent" ideas are some bullshit that you invented from your ass.
Given that you state that the purpose of your software is to block this type of creativity, it's not a good tool for this type of learning.
This is exactly why my software is better for this use case. Children will have safe environment where copyright infringement isn't possible. You wouldn't want your kid to learn copyright infringement practices and get sued for 300k euros before even learning to walk...
We'd trust RIAA/MPAA to sue your kid to get his weekly allowance to increase the cash register of entertainment companies. They simply don't care if he's 8 years old or not, the copyright industry need to get the money they deserve.
you come as if you’re trying to rebuild the first-ever printing press from scratch while everyone else is using laser printers.
That's what you call software development. At first you'll be behind the times. Your competition is building significant functionality and their software stacks are getting bloated. Once it's bloated, customers start to avoid it because it's just too heavy for the job they have. Soon you'll find out that customer's of your competition is queueing your product, because it isn't so bloated.
Name something that was created with your builder that wasn't created by you.
You should be asking if builder is available for other people to use, not whether the lazy people actually bothered to look into it.
If builder is available but noone bothers to look into it, you can only prove your own laziness. You cannot say anything about the technology that I have available.
Proving that claim true requires more than “because I said so”.
I have already provided enough details to identify the location at issue, so you can verify it yourself. But since you were known to be lazy, I don't expect your verification results anytime soon.
Photoshop, Blender, Notepad++, and the web browser you’re using to view this site intentionally sabotaged those programs in a way that limits their core functionality
Web browser is easiest example. Main functionality of web browser is downloading data from the internet. Sadly browser developers managed to ruin their download feature, by limiting the user interface of download manager which requires multiple steps by the end user per file... Hard core internet users would never accept that manual work is required per file, when best download managers can download gigabytes and large directory structures with one command, but browsers require user interaction per file.
This download manager limitation is clearly based on copyright law.
Basically only way to avoid this limitation is via zip files, and that brings you outside of web browser.
Your position has been always that our web site doesn't provide value to customers? Are you after all that trolling, going with the position that value is irrelevant?
This kind of issues can be resolved by providing significant value. For example my meshpage.org site and gameapi builder tool is providing this significant value in form of "combinatory explosion" instead of "mere aggregation" of tools in the builder. This kind of ability to actively combine different tools together to form larger logical constructs is more valuable activity than if pirates just aggregated the pirated material in a corner of their hard disk.
Basically every failure in copyright area can simply cancel one of the useful bits that you created yourself.
Even using someone else’s knowledge is a copyright violation.
You can solve this level problems by enforcing strict NDA's for your employees. The NDA can put a information flow barrier around your company in such way that nothing escapes the walled garden. You will have some people quitting because of draconian practices, but at least your information will be safe.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
No, I actually licensed it from some internet vendor. You cannot consider proper licensing activity as "rip off" or any other illegal stuff.
Your Cawthon accusation is in very shaky grounds since you need to assume that the original developer of the 3d model actually 1) does not have license to do it, 2) and that they used enough of Cawthon's material that it crosses the illegal line. I don't think you have either of those proven when you have been focusing on TP's actions, and not considered what other people need to do to get the result that you want. Basically your primary infringer is missing, and you can only claim secondary hot air claims.
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re:
You can believe anything you want, most of it is just broken beyond repair. You still cannot recognize important information from non-relevant factors. Specificity just means there's some history behind it, you cannot really give out guilty verdicts based on such information. Easy way to avoid such accusations is to mention that the Madonna problem isn't actually in our system, but someone else's. So your guilty verdict is pointed to wrong direction. I would assume that the direction of guilty arrow would be one of the key parameters when you're accusing people of copyright infringement. Basically unfounded accusations shouldn't be given forward, and you yourself have stuff to explain when you cannot point your arrows to right direction.
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re: Oh look, other companies and/or a HUGE market opportunity...
Maybe your computer systems shouldn't be filled with pictures of Madonna without her permission? You aren't yet keeping your systems clean like the audit would happen tomorrow morning 9am when you're still sleeping?
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How did you plan to publish software that you spent less than 2 weeks writing? Basically such small effort will be rejected because they're too easy tasks. Proper way to do this is to create something larger. To get it larger, you need to reinvent something that already exist.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re:
reinventing everything from scratch is necessary evil. Promoting the progress of science and useful arts. Without reinvention the project would simply be too easy for experienced developer like myself. First step at the beginning of the project is to peel layers of onion until the project size is correct. The level of investment you can expect for your project is related to how many technology layers you removed at the beginning of the project.
Linus Torvalds killed his whole computer system with this layer peeling, and he had to build operating system from scratch. Now you claim he's some kind of hero, because he reinvented software that was already available (implemented by unix and windows and macs already)... Linus is just a master of removing unnecessary software layers.
I didn't go that far, I consider programming languages and operating systems to be outside the scope of my projects. Instead I stopped at the opengl layer, that seemed to have enough low level stuff available that there's plenty of fun reinventing the technology. And I was right. The level of reinvention was placed just correctly, given that I managed to implement full system in just 8 years.
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:
This is kinda bad argument, given that stephen's exact words are "Photoshop has been “allowing” people to infringe copyrights since the ’90s.". This pretty much implies that they should be next in line for copyright witch hunt.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re:
This depends heavily what exactly you consider to be direct competitors of my software.
Basically if you count only 4 most popular works, your statement might be true.
But my real competition can be found from ludumdare, where there's 4500 gaming projects which are trying to create technologies that can compete in the marketplace.
Noone really cares about the top 4 players, it's the large mass of gaming projects that you need to compete against.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
You can always choose otherwise -- to show off your determination and go against the flow. Next week you'll just download builder and create some 3d models.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
This is what the law says. Basically there's only 2 alternative ways to get permission to use some copyrighted work: either you created the material yourself, or you properly licensed the material. Any other context dependent crap is just illegal. The law has declared these two alternatives to be the complete list of possible ways how to get permission, so that any further context is not required when doing legal determination of copyright infringement. The law explicitly says that your "context dependent" ideas are some bullshit that you invented from your ass.
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 exactly why my software is better for this use case. Children will have safe environment where copyright infringement isn't possible. You wouldn't want your kid to learn copyright infringement practices and get sued for 300k euros before even learning to walk...
We'd trust RIAA/MPAA to sue your kid to get his weekly allowance to increase the cash register of entertainment companies. They simply don't care if he's 8 years old or not, the copyright industry need to get the money they deserve.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
That's what you call software development. At first you'll be behind the times. Your competition is building significant functionality and their software stacks are getting bloated. Once it's bloated, customers start to avoid it because it's just too heavy for the job they have. Soon you'll find out that customer's of your competition is queueing your product, because it isn't so bloated.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should be asking if builder is available for other people to use, not whether the lazy people actually bothered to look into it.
If builder is available but noone bothers to look into it, you can only prove your own laziness. You cannot say anything about the technology that I have available.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re:
Your inexperience with builder is kinda glowing brightly, and everyone but you can see the problem.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
I have already provided enough details to identify the location at issue, so you can verify it yourself. But since you were known to be lazy, I don't expect your verification results anytime soon.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
so when the truth stares at you straight in the face, you simply reject the reality and substitute your own?
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
Web browser is easiest example. Main functionality of web browser is downloading data from the internet. Sadly browser developers managed to ruin their download feature, by limiting the user interface of download manager which requires multiple steps by the end user per file... Hard core internet users would never accept that manual work is required per file, when best download managers can download gigabytes and large directory structures with one command, but browsers require user interaction per file.
This download manager limitation is clearly based on copyright law.
Basically only way to avoid this limitation is via zip files, and that brings you outside of web browser.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
Your position has been always that our web site doesn't provide value to customers? Are you after all that trolling, going with the position that value is irrelevant?
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
This kind of issues can be resolved by providing significant value. For example my meshpage.org site and gameapi builder tool is providing this significant value in form of "combinatory explosion" instead of "mere aggregation" of tools in the builder. This kind of ability to actively combine different tools together to form larger logical constructs is more valuable activity than if pirates just aggregated the pirated material in a corner of their hard disk.
Basically every failure in copyright area can simply cancel one of the useful bits that you created yourself.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re:
I never said anything about sharing the settings.
I said sharing the settings dialogs.
That's significantly different message, when the settings itself can vary, while the dialog key bindings and user interface remains the same.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re:
You can solve this level problems by enforcing strict NDA's for your employees. The NDA can put a information flow barrier around your company in such way that nothing escapes the walled garden. You will have some people quitting because of draconian practices, but at least your information will be safe.
Next >>