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.
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.
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.
Copyright simply doesn't work properly unless you do some evil tricks.
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.
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:
[L]egal entities are only looking at creation date, and whether the authors gave credit to the other party. Anything else is simply irrelevant[.]
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
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.
only way to protect against this is to ensure that your employees don't have access to competitor products
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.
If the FBI had access during the planning, why didn't it act to stop it?
Maybe the FBI was compromised in its ability to do that by leaders who sympathized with Old 45 and right-wing extremism instead of American democracy. Just a guess.
Too bad it's not real forward movement, when the activity is based on copyright infringements.
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.
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.
There's just too many similarities in the games.
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?
their feature list is almost the same in both games
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?
Are they both using the same 3d engine
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.
If they actually offered some original ideas, the competition wouldn't be able to quickly clone the material.
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.
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.
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?
legal entities are only looking at creation date, and whether the authors gave credit to the other party
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.
OANN had a contract with AT&T. Once AT&T chose not to renew said contract, OANN was not entitled—legally, morally, or ethically—to remain on DirecTV past the duration of the original contract. Unless you can prove the government compelled AT&T to cut ties with OANN, what AT&T did isn’t censorship.
But feel free to keep whining about how that’s censorship, if you want. I would love to juxtapose that belief with how you feel about, say, the latest anti-“CRT” bill from Ron DeSantis.
Having “something to hide” doesn’t always make you a criminal—it can also mean you want some goddamned privacy. Or would you prefer to have the government watching you piss and shit every day?
He’s probably still recovering from the anuerysm he gave himself trying to figure out how he can support corporations using the DMCA to silence legal speech and decry all instances of corporate censorship at the same time.
On the post: Totally Bogus DMCA Takedowns From Giant Publishers Completely Nuke Book Review Blog Off The Internet
To everyone who thinks AT&T dropping OANN is “censorship”: No, this is censorship.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
To wit: Mitch McConnell.
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
Now now, don’t talk about tp like he’s an animal.
That’s insulting to actual animals.
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
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.
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
Please seek professional medical help for your early onset dementia.
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
Are you okay? Do you have brain damage?
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
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?
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
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?
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
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.
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
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.
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
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:
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
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.
On the post: Sedition Prosecution Of Oath Keepers Members Shows The FBI Can Still Work Around Encryption
Maybe the FBI was compromised in its ability to do that by leaders who sympathized with Old 45 and right-wing extremism instead of American democracy. Just a guess.
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
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.
On the post: States' 3rd Amended Antitrust Complaint Against Google Looks A Lot More Damning
Ah, the true classics never die. 🙃
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
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.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
OANN had a contract with AT&T. Once AT&T chose not to renew said contract, OANN was not entitled—legally, morally, or ethically—to remain on DirecTV past the duration of the original contract. Unless you can prove the government compelled AT&T to cut ties with OANN, what AT&T did isn’t censorship.
But feel free to keep whining about how that’s censorship, if you want. I would love to juxtapose that belief with how you feel about, say, the latest anti-“CRT” bill from Ron DeSantis.
On the post: The UK Has A Voyeuristic New Propaganda Campaign Against Encryption
Having “something to hide” doesn’t always make you a criminal—it can also mean you want some goddamned privacy. Or would you prefer to have the government watching you piss and shit every day?
On the post: States' 3rd Amended Antitrust Complaint Against Google Looks A Lot More Damning
He’s probably still recovering from the anuerysm he gave himself trying to figure out how he can support corporations using the DMCA to silence legal speech and decry all instances of corporate censorship at the same time.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Modern American conservatism has no coherent governing philosophy beyond “own the libs”.
Next >>