so here you have found a clear use case for my 3d engine. I thought techdirt couldn't find it, but guess you proved us wrong. Basically hologram support is available in the builder tool and displaying motorcycle is clearly possible with the technology. So there you have it, if you're right and there's demand for holograms like this, then my 3d engine can fulfill the need. No further proof is required.
General consensus has been that the technology is useless, but you're seriously going against the flow. You will be rewarded for your bold action, and our technology has now proven its worth.
If your plan ever comes to fruition, may you be the first goat sacrificed
Its more cunning than that. The copyrighted work I created will be sacrificed in small pieces. One section of the market gets meshpage, others builder and some people will get 3d model viewer. Making the copyright bit unstable is very trivial operation, I'll just change the license availability slightly at carefully designed due dates. Then market will consume the work only when copyright allows it. Some poor souls looking for late christmas presents will need to disappoint when the product was only available to the early birds. The after-christmas pirates will be obviously sued for copyright infringement. Etc... The plan is cooking wonderfully...
For what reason, then, should the government be allowed to punish innocent people without question?
For example if putin comes to visit the president, I expect some crazy people to be locked away while the visit is happening. That's clearly punishing people who have done nothing wrong except be on government watch lists.
Or if the rich and famous are keeping drunken party, the rock-themed music fans from the neighbourhood is having trouble with the police so they don't disturb the elite.
Or if large company ceo happens to visit airport, all the jimmy wales fans begging for more money will be escorted away.
For what reason should I trust any government if it is willing to punish innocent
since you cannot change the government without moving to cuba, you simply have no other choice than learn to trust the government. Its worse situation if you fail to do it, given that changing the government is not possible and trusting the govt allows you to use government's services to your benefit...
For what reason should the government be allowed to punish an innocent person
You need to trust the government to do the right thing, even though you might not understand why it is happening. Trusting the government is important skill to have. When it looks like innocent people get punished by the government, you're just not seeing the full picture. Some more important problem might require this action. They simply cannot explain it to you. You just need to trust the government to work correctly.
The plaintiff in any legal case is required to prove their claims
Because of facebook's BGP blunder, you need to "trust the government" for a while. The message that activated the above was too powerful for me, so response is automatic. Basically automatic messages are all dangerous. Facebook's BGP blunder is extreamly dangerous, so I didn't over-react one bit.
You can recognize automatic messages by examining the quality of the offered information. If it feels too accurate and good information, and it's large wall of text, something bad has happened.
there's plenty of historical examples of them accusing the wrong person
based on the flimsy evidence
This flimsy evidence does not mean that wrong persons are being accused. It means that the burden shouldn't be placed on the copyright owner, but instead the burden for obtaining guarantees against wrongful convictions need to be assigned to the legal system and the judges, not to the copyright owners. Basically there needs to be small amount of communication between copyright owners and judges in such way that a judge can verify the claims to be true. But the final determination cannot be placed to the copyright owners, since they have no experience of the criminal system.
Basically you need to decide who you're going to trust. The legal system enjoys significant amount of trust from the general public and you need to trust that they will do their best to avoid outcome that isn't just. Copyright owners have earned slightly different kind of trust, stemming from the work that copyright owners allow general public to use in form of products, services and technologies which are all protected by copyright laws. The accused pirates have slightly different kind of trust, the system trusts that those pirates are stretching the limits of the legal system, always finding different way to use the copyrighted works that copyright owners created. But compensation needs to flow.
In copyright laws, while copyright owners make a selection from among most notorous pirates who to sue for copyright infringement, they could choose anyone who they deem to be against the law for some reason. But because of efficient use of resources, copyright owners can only sue small number of people and the damage award need to be high enough that the damage caused by the whole pirate ecosystem and the damage awards are balanced. One unlucky pirate needs to bear the burden of his whole community. This is reverse lottery.
Your claim is that these people who participate in the reverse lottery are being wrongfully accused, but this isn't likely true. Instead the legal cases in our table shows clearly that copyright owners are choosing the persons who they have biggest chance of success in eventual copyright lawsuit, and the end result is that copyright owners are winning the lawsuits, making first instances of reverse lottery actually working as designed. This Joel guy who lost copyright infringement lawsuit, were clearly admitting that he was outside of the law when he pirated the music, event though he likes it to be just speeding in the internet superhighway. The other cases are not much different.
Settlements are obviously a concern among pirates. Copyright owners are deemed to receive unjust compensatiion from the pirate ecosystem when the pirates are accepting settlement amounts even when judges have not yet decided about the person's status in the criminal justice system. But that's the purpose of the settlement, the accused pirate can decide themselves if they want to pay the settlement and be saved from possible life-ruining legal process, or if they want to stand firm against overwhelming ip-address evidence of wrongdoing.
And here we have it. Copyright owners have fulfilled their responsibility to point out what activity they are complaining about. This needs to be enough, and the courts and the justice system needs to work even with flimsy evidence. It is responsibility of every player in the system to ensure that accused pirates are not in a bad status for no good reason.
You’re literally arguing in favor of changing the law so copyright owners can have people convicted of a crime based only on evidence that may not even prove what the accuser says it proves.
That's the current law. Copyright owners are enjoying significant amount of rights currently, simply because they worked hard to get the product to the market. It's similar to how startup companies are handled, i.e. government is trying to make the system work well enough that every startup can survive. Still there's 90% failure rate in that area.
should ever be punished by the legal system for a crime they either didn’t commit or can’t be proven to have committed.
but this is exactly what you're doing when you take away copyright owner's work without permission... Basically copyright owners did nothing bad to you before you leeched their work, but still you want to punish these poor copyright owners by taking away their life's work and turning it to useless bricks which generate no money to the author.
Does punishing innocent people—or lowering the standards of evidence for proving guilt—provide any sort of justice,
You have to understand that copyright owners worked hard to be in position to be able to sue infringers. Copyright owners spent years and years time developing copyrighted works and co-operated with the publishing companies to get their works published. Then publisher backstabs the author and distributes the work without permission. This is when copyright infringement lawsuit need to begin.
The already spent work amounts need to be taken into account when deciding appropriate standards of evidence. It's not appropriate to force copyright owners do the hard work 2nd time just so that infringers can get away with their criminal acts. At this point, copyright owners can already rely on the hard work they did, and rest of the world will need to follow their flute.
When even you admit that the evidence is flimsy and really doesn't prove anything
Well, copyright owners are NOT REQUIRED to provide watertight evidence. The assumption is that copyright owners do not have large lawyer organisation that can discover proper evidence. The copyright lawsuit needs to be possible for copyright owners coming outside of commercial publishing organisatons. This means that the proof required for copyright infringement is very small, and judges will need to examine the evidence in such way that the copyright owners are the small guy who needs proper protection against evil giant publishers who didn't bother to take permission from the small guy.
Of course RIAA kinda turned this thing upsidedown, but still the proof required for copyright infringement has never been too accurate or even vald. It's enough that there's some flimsy evidence pointing to the correct direction.
This is the reason why RIAA gets their ip-addresses accepted as valid copyright infringement evidence.
based on your own "stricter copyright standards", you pirated someone else's work to gain access to their market share.
Well, your theory has one significant flaw. There are free licenses available for the technology I use. So it's not pirated, and your stack of cards falls down like world trade center...
Technically your theory is possible, if I insisted on rejecting their copyright licenses. But I simply accepted their licenses.
There are other situations where I actually rejected a clear open-source license simply because I don't need their software.
A minor note still to this... The claim that "at least I dont need to encourage people to do it" is still true, even if I implemented import/export...
Basically how our version of the feature works is that I simply didn't implement the feature to its full flexibility, i.e. our export options are very limited, and import features are checking for copyrights with domain restrictions. So I'm actually doing the feature in better way than how those other vendors are handling the copyright-dangerous feature.
Basically lazy approach that those other vendors are doing, i.e. taking an existing library and let it import/export all file formats equally well, will result in a feature that encourages piracy (of those files)
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re:
you didn't yet apply to the etiquette training either, so guess we're even.
On the post: Disney Defeats Lawsuit Brought By Company Owning Evel Knievel's Rights Over 'Toy Story 4' Character
Re:
so here you have found a clear use case for my 3d engine. I thought techdirt couldn't find it, but guess you proved us wrong. Basically hologram support is available in the builder tool and displaying motorcycle is clearly possible with the technology. So there you have it, if you're right and there's demand for holograms like this, then my 3d engine can fulfill the need. No further proof is required.
General consensus has been that the technology is useless, but you're seriously going against the flow. You will be rewarded for your bold action, and our technology has now proven its worth.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re: Re: Re:
Its more cunning than that. The copyrighted work I created will be sacrificed in small pieces. One section of the market gets meshpage, others builder and some people will get 3d model viewer. Making the copyright bit unstable is very trivial operation, I'll just change the license availability slightly at carefully designed due dates. Then market will consume the work only when copyright allows it. Some poor souls looking for late christmas presents will need to disappoint when the product was only available to the early birds. The after-christmas pirates will be obviously sued for copyright infringement. Etc... The plan is cooking wonderfully...
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re:
Sacrificing the goat to the altar of copyright is perfectly good plan.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re:
some amount of suffering is necessary for the greater good.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re:
You were never able to see the boulders from the pebbles.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re:
For example if putin comes to visit the president, I expect some crazy people to be locked away while the visit is happening. That's clearly punishing people who have done nothing wrong except be on government watch lists.
Or if the rich and famous are keeping drunken party, the rock-themed music fans from the neighbourhood is having trouble with the police so they don't disturb the elite.
Or if large company ceo happens to visit airport, all the jimmy wales fans begging for more money will be escorted away.
Can you see where this is going?
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re:
since you cannot change the government without moving to cuba, you simply have no other choice than learn to trust the government. Its worse situation if you fail to do it, given that changing the government is not possible and trusting the govt allows you to use government's services to your benefit...
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re:
You need to trust the government to do the right thing, even though you might not understand why it is happening. Trusting the government is important skill to have. When it looks like innocent people get punished by the government, you're just not seeing the full picture. Some more important problem might require this action. They simply cannot explain it to you. You just need to trust the government to work correctly.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re:
I said that you need to trust the government. Nothing can be closer to government than govt appointed judges in a court of law.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re:
Because of facebook's BGP blunder, you need to "trust the government" for a while. The message that activated the above was too powerful for me, so response is automatic. Basically automatic messages are all dangerous. Facebook's BGP blunder is extreamly dangerous, so I didn't over-react one bit.
You can recognize automatic messages by examining the quality of the offered information. If it feels too accurate and good information, and it's large wall of text, something bad has happened.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re: Re: Re:
This flimsy evidence does not mean that wrong persons are being accused. It means that the burden shouldn't be placed on the copyright owner, but instead the burden for obtaining guarantees against wrongful convictions need to be assigned to the legal system and the judges, not to the copyright owners. Basically there needs to be small amount of communication between copyright owners and judges in such way that a judge can verify the claims to be true. But the final determination cannot be placed to the copyright owners, since they have no experience of the criminal system.
Basically you need to decide who you're going to trust. The legal system enjoys significant amount of trust from the general public and you need to trust that they will do their best to avoid outcome that isn't just. Copyright owners have earned slightly different kind of trust, stemming from the work that copyright owners allow general public to use in form of products, services and technologies which are all protected by copyright laws. The accused pirates have slightly different kind of trust, the system trusts that those pirates are stretching the limits of the legal system, always finding different way to use the copyrighted works that copyright owners created. But compensation needs to flow.
In copyright laws, while copyright owners make a selection from among most notorous pirates who to sue for copyright infringement, they could choose anyone who they deem to be against the law for some reason. But because of efficient use of resources, copyright owners can only sue small number of people and the damage award need to be high enough that the damage caused by the whole pirate ecosystem and the damage awards are balanced. One unlucky pirate needs to bear the burden of his whole community. This is reverse lottery.
Your claim is that these people who participate in the reverse lottery are being wrongfully accused, but this isn't likely true. Instead the legal cases in our table shows clearly that copyright owners are choosing the persons who they have biggest chance of success in eventual copyright lawsuit, and the end result is that copyright owners are winning the lawsuits, making first instances of reverse lottery actually working as designed. This Joel guy who lost copyright infringement lawsuit, were clearly admitting that he was outside of the law when he pirated the music, event though he likes it to be just speeding in the internet superhighway. The other cases are not much different.
Settlements are obviously a concern among pirates. Copyright owners are deemed to receive unjust compensatiion from the pirate ecosystem when the pirates are accepting settlement amounts even when judges have not yet decided about the person's status in the criminal justice system. But that's the purpose of the settlement, the accused pirate can decide themselves if they want to pay the settlement and be saved from possible life-ruining legal process, or if they want to stand firm against overwhelming ip-address evidence of wrongdoing.
And here we have it. Copyright owners have fulfilled their responsibility to point out what activity they are complaining about. This needs to be enough, and the courts and the justice system needs to work even with flimsy evidence. It is responsibility of every player in the system to ensure that accused pirates are not in a bad status for no good reason.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re:
Eye for an eye.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re:
That's the current law. Copyright owners are enjoying significant amount of rights currently, simply because they worked hard to get the product to the market. It's similar to how startup companies are handled, i.e. government is trying to make the system work well enough that every startup can survive. Still there's 90% failure rate in that area.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re:
but this is exactly what you're doing when you take away copyright owner's work without permission... Basically copyright owners did nothing bad to you before you leeched their work, but still you want to punish these poor copyright owners by taking away their life's work and turning it to useless bricks which generate no money to the author.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re:
You have to understand that copyright owners worked hard to be in position to be able to sue infringers. Copyright owners spent years and years time developing copyrighted works and co-operated with the publishing companies to get their works published. Then publisher backstabs the author and distributes the work without permission. This is when copyright infringement lawsuit need to begin.
The already spent work amounts need to be taken into account when deciding appropriate standards of evidence. It's not appropriate to force copyright owners do the hard work 2nd time just so that infringers can get away with their criminal acts. At this point, copyright owners can already rely on the hard work they did, and rest of the world will need to follow their flute.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah copyright hypocri
Well, copyright owners are NOT REQUIRED to provide watertight evidence. The assumption is that copyright owners do not have large lawyer organisation that can discover proper evidence. The copyright lawsuit needs to be possible for copyright owners coming outside of commercial publishing organisatons. This means that the proof required for copyright infringement is very small, and judges will need to examine the evidence in such way that the copyright owners are the small guy who needs proper protection against evil giant publishers who didn't bother to take permission from the small guy.
Of course RIAA kinda turned this thing upsidedown, but still the proof required for copyright infringement has never been too accurate or even vald. It's enough that there's some flimsy evidence pointing to the correct direction.
This is the reason why RIAA gets their ip-addresses accepted as valid copyright infringement evidence.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah copyright hypocrisy...
but plaintiff can fulfill their requirement by flimsy evidence related to ip-addresses. They don't even need to examine their records.
On the post: Backpage Founders Trial Finally Begins
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, your theory has one significant flaw. There are free licenses available for the technology I use. So it's not pirated, and your stack of cards falls down like world trade center...
Technically your theory is possible, if I insisted on rejecting their copyright licenses. But I simply accepted their licenses.
There are other situations where I actually rejected a clear open-source license simply because I don't need their software.
On the post: Backpage Founders Trial Finally Begins
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A minor note still to this... The claim that "at least I dont need to encourage people to do it" is still true, even if I implemented import/export...
Basically how our version of the feature works is that I simply didn't implement the feature to its full flexibility, i.e. our export options are very limited, and import features are checking for copyrights with domain restrictions. So I'm actually doing the feature in better way than how those other vendors are handling the copyright-dangerous feature.
Basically lazy approach that those other vendors are doing, i.e. taking an existing library and let it import/export all file formats equally well, will result in a feature that encourages piracy (of those files)
Next >>