Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
from the under-the-'c' dept
If you haven’t been a long time Techdirt reader, you’ll probably hear me say that there is a copyright infringement court case in Denmark and immediately wonder, “Yeesh, what did Disney do now?” But this is not a story about Disney. This is a story about the heirs of Edvard Eriksen, creator of a bronze statue of The Little Mermaid, inspired by the classic Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, and their inability to let anyone in any way depict the statue or anything similar without being accosted in copyright actions. Most of the bullying actions by Eriksen’s heirs have been, unbelievably, against other towns throughout the world for creating their own Little Mermaid statues: Greenville, Michigan and the Danish city of Asaa for example.
But less known are all the times Eriksen’s heirs have gone after publications for showing pictures or other depictions of the statue. I won’t pretend to be an expert in Danish copyright law, but if that country’s laws are such that a newspaper or magazine cannot show a picture of one of the country’s most famous landmarks, then that law is silly and should be changed or amended. Lest you think I must have this wrong, you can see a recent story of, not one, but two courts ruling that a newspaper must compensate Eriksen’s heirs for a cartoon that depicted the statue on its pages.
An appeals court in Denmark has increased the compensation a newspaper was ordered to pay for violating the copyright of Copenhagen’s The Little Mermaid statue with a cartoon depicting the bronze landmark as a zombie and a photo of it with a facemask.
The Berlingske newspaper published the cartoon in 2019 to illustrate an article about the debate culture in Denmark and used the photo in 2020 to represent a link between the far right and people fearing COVID-19.
For those of us reading this news in America, as well as many other nations, this all looks completely laughable. This is purely free speech stuff, protected in America by the First Amendment. Even getting past that, a cartoon of a statue is not a recreation of that statue, therefore copyright wouldn’t even really apply. Plus it’s parody and being used for commentary. Nothing about this makes sense.
And, yet, it must in Denmark because this 2nd court not only affirmed the ruling of the lower court but actually increased the compensation the newspaper was ordered to pay Eriksen’s heirs.
Both were found to be infringements of the Danish Copyright Act. Copenhagen’s district court ordered the newspaper in 2020 to pay the heirs of Danish sculptor Edvard Eriksen 285,000 kroner ($44,000) in compensation. The appeals court on Wednesday raised the amount to 300,000 kroner ($46,000).
In a statement, the Eastern High Court in the Danish capital agreed with the lower court that “there was a violation of copyright” in the newspaper’s actions. It did not give a reason for increasing the compensation amount but noted that Berlingske is a commercial venture since it wants to sell newspapers.
Again, this is all absurd. If the above rulings truly do comport with Danish copyright law, then all that suggests is that there needs to be an active movement in Denmark to amend the law. And, just to make this all the more frustrating, the copyright protections in Denmark are familiar: 70 years after the death of the author. In this case, that means Eriksen’s heirs will only have this ability to bilk others for cash payments for the statue for another seven years.
Filed Under: cartoon, copyright, denmark, erik eriksen, little mermaid, newspapers
Comments on “Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon”
Ah the wonders of copyright
Whew, could you imagine how little creativity would take place if the Holy Copyright wasn’t around to allow relatives of a dead sculptor to extort other people for drawing cartoons of a sculpture of a character someone else created? Society itself would grind to a halt without such an ability I’m sure.
Damages payment
Well water to do. They tide. It’s shellfish, but they prawned everything on line at the riverbank for the o-fish-al payment.
Re: Damages payment
Lurch groan
Re: Re: Damages payment
I actually messed that up. Should have been "Well water to dew."
It’s surprisingly difficult to type something like that and get it right when you’re in the habit of typing grammatically….
Insane Little Mermaid
I think I will write that book.
But if they don’t pay, what incentive does zombie (or perhaps after 63 years just an animate skeleton) Edvard Eriksen have to create more art?
More importantly, what incentive does Edvard Eriksen’s kids have to do anything if they’re not being paid for work from 109 years ago?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
get the license instead
Instead of waiting for copyright owners to get bankrupteed, the newspaper could try to get a license to display the statue in the newspaper. I’m sure the license fees are significantly lower if the estate does not need to sue the newspaper to get their money. Its just laziness on the part of the newspaper, if they do not get licenses for the images they publish, and part of that permission analysis is that they check owners of buildings or landmarks they publish.
Re: get the license instead
Copyright is supposed to protect interpretations of ideas, not the idea itself.
Unless the newspaper cartoon is a photorealistic exact copy of the statue, it’s an interpretation of an idea, not the idea itself.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: get the license instead
The analysis should focus more on "who is the owner of each part of the image?"..
i.e. when the statue is clearly owned by the estate, or if there were famous buildings displayed in the cartoon, each such element of the newspaper image has some owner attached to it… When owner is clearly someone else than the person taking image with the camera, license arrangements need to be done.
The idea/expression division doesnt matter, when you just need to examine every part of the image and find the owner. Are you claiming that selling mockups of statue of liberty is allowed without paying license fees to the owner of the statue?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Replicas of the Statue of Liberty exist all over the world. The Statue of Liberty itself is not hurt by this. People still flock to the see the original.
Notably, you have yet to pay stricter copyright law fines to Scott Cawthon.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s just embarrassing what he does to himself.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
It’s one thing when someone lets his idiocy ruin his own chances for success in any field, but when it comes to Tero Pulkinnen and his open desires to accuse grandmothers and demand that they sell their internal organs to pay the copyright fines he requests, just so he can convince the Finnish government to use his data-leaking, spaghetti-coded mess of a malware he calls a 3D graphics engine, it behooves any decent human to point out how deranged the copyright cultists can get.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
There’s no fines for situation where the content is taken offline when problems are first found. Strict copyright law following allows this "take offline" operation..
It’s the sloppy practices involved in copyright minimalism which need to pay huge fines when they refuse the take content offline when problems are found.
The law is clear, innocent infringement is activated only when content is taken offline easily.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"The law is clear, innocent infringement is activated only when content is taken offline easily."
Cool story bro, now what statute was that again?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Here’s the whole history of the practice:
https://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/reese/reese_innocent_infringement.pdf
If your googling skills cannot find that paperwork when needed, your computer skills might need some improvement.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
That’s not stricter copyright law, because what you Googled isn’t strict enough.
In stricter copyright law there is no belief that anyone is innocent. We know this, because we know from your insistence that no one is innocent, therefore the public domain must be destroyed as it is all infringing.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I ain’t doing your homework for you boy. You bring the claim, you bring the proof. So again what statute did you infringe that quote from?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Why are you citing interpretation of US law in a story about a Danish copyright ruling?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
TP has never let’s facts get in the way of his shit ass arguments.
Re:
Yes, yes, you’re in favor of the unabashed greed of copyright maximalism and think anyone who owns a copyright should be allowed to exploit it in every conceivable fashion until the heat death of the universe. Find a new song, you off-key lounge singer—this one is all played out.
Re: get the license instead
If the copyright rules you keep on proposing were to be enforced, the world would become quieter that a Trappist monastery.
Imagine trying to write a comment is you needed a license for every phrase that gas appeared in a work under copyright, oh and the little mermaid statue would not exists as it borrows from previous illustration of a mermaid.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: get the license instead
This isn’t a big problem. NFTs have shown us that the real problem is recognizing who is the owner of the material, when there’s millions of people offering products that they didn’t create themselves. Basically NFT marketplaces are in huge trouble when they cannot recognize who is actual author and who is copycat who pilfered someone else’s work. see this https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/nft-marketplace-shuts-citing-rampant-fakes-plagiarism-problem-2022-02-11/
Basically we need the world to be silent and only the authors should be talking. The copyright ownership is so powerful that only the owners are allowed to talk, but there currently is no way to filter out people who do not own copyright for the works.
Re: Re: Re: get the license instead
Your muleheaded sense of elitism aside…
Which is funny when you consider that part of the pro-NFT argument – and indeed, the pro-cryptocurrency argument – is that the whole point of NFTs and cryptocurrencies is its ability to be perpetually secure, since the ownership data is secured by the blockchain. (Which doesn’t really gel with the argument that crypto is completely untraceable by the government, but then again cryptobros will continue pushing the anonymity angle, despite the government recently seizing $3.6 billion in crypto before it could be laundered off.
Unfortunately for you, since your copyright enforcement overlords and maximalist creators in Malibu Media decided that having "opt in" copyright was too difficult and costly to maintain, the reality of copyright law is that everything automatically gets copyright upon creation. Anyone and everyone can, indeed, be an owner or creator. The drawback you claim to have is that some people might create works that you might not like, or you might claim that there’s no quality control – but this was the bed you chose to make.
What a goddamn surprise, filtering out copyright requests based on Tero Pulkinnen’s stricter copyright laws don’t actually exist. Thanks for admitting that, yet again.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 get the license instead
That sounds like a good business plan… usually when you stumble into something that does not yet exist, it becomes good business plan…
Re: Re: Re:3 get the license instead
"usually when you stumble into something that does not yet exist, it becomes good business plan."
Step 1: Find Tp’s common sense and rational thinking about copyright
Step 2: ???
Step 3: $$$
Re: Re: Re:3 get the license instead
You assume that you can profit off such a thing that does not exist. If you can’t, the debate on whether it can be considered good is meaningless. It’d be the equivalent of someone trying to sell unicorn tears as a sex aid – it might be profitable, but until it can actually be produced, nobody will pay for that sales pitch.
Your problem, though, is not that the business plan doesn’t exist. It’s a business model called "copyright trolling". And those who found that business plan got themselves arrested or permanently banned from practicing law. Ideally that’ll happen to you at some point.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 get the license instead
That would be suing people and demanding money. But my approach to copyright is creating technologies that have copyright rules built-in to the technology. It’s a win-win, i.e. tech developers get money doing it, and customers get assurances that their children wont accidentally ruin their lives by committing copyright infringements. This kind of technology that has been designed for current copyright environment is important before you can sell your products to children who do not yet understand copyright’s fine details. The sandbox for children need to be safe environment where they can play and experiment with different techniques without causing large copyright damage.
Re: Re: Re:5 get the license instead
Impossible, what you are describing in completely impossible.
Copyright law is very complicated and whether somehting is or is not copyright infringment can depend on many different factors.
No automated algorithm can every perfectly achieve this.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 get the license instead
This is why it’s a good challenge for master programmer like myself. I didn’t expect idiots from techdirt to be able to do it, but professional programmers are able to find shortcuts powerful enough that it can crack the nut.
Re: Re: Re:7 get the license instead
In that case give a technique for calculating the last digit of pi.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 get the license instead
Pi’s value is 3, so last digit is also 3.
Re: Re: Re:9
No, it isn’t, but you keep thinking you’re better than literally every mathematician in the world. I’m sure that’ll get you that dream mansion of yours all the faster~.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
the mansion doesn’t have any round corners, so pi is not needed.
Re: Re: Re:11
The same could be said about your brain.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
You use square pipes and avoid anything round, is that it?
Nobody’s going to use modeling software that can’t cope with round surfaces. But thanks for confirming once again the Meshpage is useless bloatware.
Re: Re: Re:9 get the license inst
You failed to see a universal answer for real numbers, it is 0, as a zero can always be appended to the end, (after the decimal point) without changing the value.
Re: Re: Re:9 get the license inst
Where the hell did you get that idea?
Re: Re: Re:9 get the license inst
How does your modeling software work if it can’t even handle round objects?
Re: Re: Re:10 get the license
The Amiga 500 demos he cribbed from late 80s discs to inspire what he shows on his front page didn’t need curves, so maybe he thinks modern graphics don’t need them either.
Either that, or he uses free math libraries to do the thinking for him and he actually believes that there’s no significant data points that matter since the free software he takes from does that for him…
Re: Re: Re:5 get the license instead
And as proven by the case of you committing innocent infringement, which you personally admitted to, your "built-in copyright rules" have failed.
Re: Re: Re:5 get the license instead
Can’t be done without a full database of all works under copyright to check every new work against. Without that you can’t prevent infringement, as for example a series of overlapping coloured circles can look like a famous mouse character. With that database you can probably find a reason to block any new work as being a derivative of something that exists, or containing element from copyrighted works.
Also, you are ignoring that the way humans learn is by copying, and if you prevent copying, you prevent learning.
Re: Re: Re:6 Infringements all the way down
Such a database would be the easy part of the system, you’d also have to factor in the many different copyright laws and most notably the exceptions and context of use, and given actual humans can and do screw that up(as this very story so nicely illustrates) such a system would be good for utterly gutting cultural and societal growth alongside creativity by shutting it all down, with the added benefit of showing how intertwined what was just created is with what came before and how near everything is just building upon what was already there and giving it a little change.
Re: Re: Re:7
I should note here that tp would have absolutely no problem with this outcome, which he himself has implied (or outright said) in the past. He hates the idea of other people being allowed to create new works on the backs of older works—and that is despite having been told…multiple times…that building on the works of others is how new cultural works have always been created.
Then someone points out that he ripped off Scott Cawthon by posting an unlicensed picture of Springtrap from the Five Nights at Freddy’s franchise. At that point, tp bends over so far backwards to defend his accidental infringement of the High Holy Sacred Copyright Law—an infringement he believes other people should be punished for in extreme ways, an infringement he believes all software (including his own) should be able to magically prevent from happening—that he ends up twisting himself into a human pretzel.
It’s not that tp hates culture and other people (even though he does). It’s that he literally wants God to enforce copyright as a law above both Man’s and God’s, because the only way tp can get what he wants is for an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent supernatural deity to do all the work for him.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
software has nice property that computers are executing the rules. Thus I need to just write working rules once, and then it’s up to computers to enforce those rules. This is why omnipotent deity is not needed.
Re: Re: Re:9
You couldn’t even prevent yourself from violating copyright once.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
It’s enough that my customers are able to avoid infringements. There’s good assumption that the customers are not criminal masterminds. So we can allow them to play with a sandbox and if they find ways to overcome the barriers that prevent infringements, it’s time to shutdown the service and develop some more safeguards against infringements. This is how NFT marketplaces are handling the issue, i.e. they let their customers play with the system and got 80% of plagiarism, fake collections and spam, but now they’re back to drawing board and trying to design a system that prevents the misuse. If commercial entities worth 2 billion stock credits are able to make this work, why wouldn’t meshpage be able to do that same thing? These claims that its impossible for meshpage but NFT marketplaces are doing the same thing…
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
If the drawing capabilities of a program allowed coloured overlapping shapes, it is possible to create images of a famous cartoon mouse. If it does not allow that to be done, it is not a useful in any sense of the word as a drawing/animation program. I guess you better shutdown Meshpages, as either it allows infringement, or is totally useless.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
its possible to manually check all submitted content… Once verified to be free of infringement, it’s allowed to publish it on your web page..
Re: Re: Re:13
And yet, your software didn’t stop you from publishing an unauthorized and unlicensed full-body model of a character from a copyrighted work on your site.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Only of you wish to return to a world where less than 1% of people can get their works or letters published.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
You just need to ensure that YOU are in the top 1%…
Re: Re: Re:15
Unless you’re rich, you won’t be—which means you (and Meshpage) will still be a failure.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
It’s telling that whether they’re a dedicated troll or just plain demented their ‘this is how things should be’ involves stifling the overwhelming majority of creativity in favor of a tiny sliver ‘allowed’ and controlled by the rich and powerful.
There’s thinking that you don’t stand upon the shoulders of giants and then there’s thinking that while doing everything you can to kill said giants so that no one can ever do so again.
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
John Smith, aka Whatever/MyNameHere/Just Sayin’/horse with no name, was a huge fan of this. "Sure, there are more content creators, but they don’t count because I don’t like what they do, therefore SOPA/PIPA/Fosta/Article 13 is necessary."
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
So competition is too difficult for you? Maybe you should get back to school to learn some more skills…
Re: Re: Re:17
Pot, kettle, black.
Re: Re: Re:11
All that infringing content wouldn’t have been on NFT marketplaces to begin with if commercial entities could “make this work”. They can’t get it right without the power of God. The same goes for you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
If the market as a whole cannot get it working, then my solution doesnt need to be perfect either. But this url proves that "best practices" are at 92%: https://tpgames.org/seo.png so if courts are asking how well we’re implementing our system, 92% is where we’re at.
Re: Re: Re:13
That screenshot means nothing without context.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
You writing the number 92% on your own website is not verifiable proof. All that means is you’re a self-centered egomaniac who will demand irresponsibly strict copyright enforcement on others while whitewashing his own offenses. Unfortunately for you, everyone else has already clued in on your little scam.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
You can get these same numbers by launching chrome, going to developer tools, lighthouse and clicking "generate report"…
Note that techdirt is getting significantly worse result than meshpage.
Re: Re: Re:15
That has nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with the “best practices” of website development, you World Heritage Dumbass.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
But techdirt couldn’t even get these metrics implemented…
Re: Re: Re:17
Irrelevant; website performance has nothing to do with copyright.
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
For someone who claims to be a master coder and wants copyright to be strictly enforced, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone who knows less about those subjects than our friend here.
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
For a while I’ve suspected that the guy who you can hear on the Meshpage tutorials might not even be Tero, just the original coder that "tp" lifted the code from – during a time when there might have been an actual Meshpage "team" before Mr. Robogadget decided to go full Hal 9000.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:20 Re:
And you’re going to build a system that does analyzing people’s voices on internet just to prove this? What happens if your system actually decides that the person on the tutorial is actually Tero and tp seems to be the same person.
Re: Re: Re:21 Re:
Not everything needs a system to decide you’re full of shit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
The information is coming from different teams from the internet, i.e. from trolls like yourself. If the global information is poor quality, I cannot do anything about it.
Re: Re: Re:20 Re:
Law and code don’t rely on what you think is correct. This is why Oracle failed in their bid to claim $2 billion from Google, because their arguments had absolutely no merit.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Nothing like someone screeching about how terrible bridges are as they stand right upon one currently keeping them from plummeting into an abyss…
Re: Re: Re:9
tp would actively destroy that bridge and complain about how nobody is helping him.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
He’d destroy the bridge, then rebuild it from toothpicks and then complain that nobody’s using his superior design that removed all the problems with using concrete.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 get the license instead
This database already exists. It’s stored in human brains. All I need to do is ask real humans to evaluate the copyright status of my work. Once some of the reviewers realize that some model is owned by some unknown person who I’ve not heard before, then I can drop that model from the front page, and move to reviewing next block of works.
Basically all my customers have the information which works are ripped off from existing works. Extracting that information from customers takes a little bit of work, but you’ve already seen that approach to work with scott cawthon, i.e. when my customers find out scott’s name, I can evaluate the information and stop distributing the questionable material.
Re: Re: Re:7 get the license instead
The big question is how do you select a large enough set of people to ask, so that all works are covered. Hint, there are works under copyright that are only known to few people in the world. Until everyone in the world has looked at a work, you cannot be sure that it does not infringe on some obscure work known to a few people.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 get the license instead
Covering all works is not required. You only need to do this for popular works. And if humans still remember the work, it can be considered popular. Obviously checking against all works under copyright in the whole world is impossible operation, but human brains have billions of connections available in them, and thus the best database coverage can be obtained by asking real humans to evaluate the copyright status. This is the best available technology, and courts are bound to accept the best solution in the world as a solution to this problem. While we’re still far away from the full coverage, the best available solution is already enough.
Note that this solution doesn’t come as a surprise to courts, as copyright was designed when computers simply didn’t exist. The best available solution has not changed even after technology has been developed for 200 years.
Re: Re: Re:9
To prevent all copyright infringement to any degree anywhere and everywhere in the world—as you have claimed your software will one day be able to do—you must cover all copyrighted works, including the obscure ones.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
This isn’t required. There’s another alternative that comes with copyright maximalist principles. I.e. you can block more works than law actually requires. This practice of overblocking will avoid the 1-1 matching against all works on the planet, and allow blocking large sections of the world. Like if I decide that mp4 files are too dangerous because they allow attaching hollywood’s blockbuster movies to the files, I can block all .mp4 files from my system. While this does some overblocking, i.e. ordinary people’s home videos go with the bathwater, but it also avoids all copyright infringement from mp4 area.
This kind of decisions to block whole technology areas are not done without careful competitive assessment, but there are situations like the hollywood movies which force such actions.
Re: Re: Re:11
You can’t win an ass-kicking contest by kneecapping your own contestant.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
"This practice of overblocking will avoid the 1-1 matching against all works on the planet"
Hopefully if your insanity ever comes to pass, your work will be the sole false positives.
"it also avoids all copyright infringement from mp4 area"
Cool, so pirates just get the heads up to use a different format? They’ll thank you for making their lives easier.
"there are situations like the hollywood movies which force such actions"
The completely ineffective actions that have never reduced piracy as much as simply allowing easy access to content has done?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
There’s only very small number of dangerous areas like hollywood movies. Other formats simply do not have active pirate community available, which would grow larger if we supplied them with working tools that allowed those piracy operations.
Re: Re: Re:13
Only if you’re an idiot. Literally any file format can be used to infringe upon copyright if you know what you’re doing. Shit, even plain text can infringe upon copyright.
Unless you plan to block every kind of file format from being used in Meshpage in any way, it can be used for copyright infringement. To wit: your own infringement of Scott Cawthon’s copyright, which your magical, supernatural, “it can stop all the infringement” software couldn’t prevent.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
If there’s no active pirate community available, you simply cannot get access to pirated files which you could use for copyright infringement. Copyright infringement actually requires large organisation dedicated to the criminal actions. When such community does not exists, supporting those file formats is relatively safe operation.
Re: Re: Re:15
I can literally save an image off Google Image Search that doesn’t belong to me right now. That’s technically infringement unless I had permission to download the image first. Holy shit how are you so bad at being a copyright maximalist.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
If you’re certain of this problem, you can sue google image search for offering pirated material and making you commit copyright infringement. I’m sure google will put a good fight, but in the end, if your arguments have any merit, you’d win your lawsuit and get significant money from largest companies in the world.
But then again, you don’t trust enough that your information is correct, so you’re too afraid of having to pay the company’s lawyers fees that you simply fail to do the correct thing and sue the company.
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
Not for a lack of trying. Google’s various search engines have been sued several times over the years. You don’t hear about those because those attempts have never been successful because they’re completely unmeritorious.
Information that gets brought up in copyright suits is often incorrect, yes. That’s why your friends in Prenda Law, Malibu Media and Richard Liebowitz all got their asses fined and jailed for copyright trolling.
Re: Re: Re:17
fucking what
you think google fucking makes me commit infringement when I voluntarily search for an image
you think they hold a fucking gun to my head or some shit
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha this would be even funnier if it weren’t so fucking deranged and you weren’t such a genocidal lunatic
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
"If you’re certain of this problem, you can sue google image search for offering pirated material and making you commit copyright infringement. I’m sure google will put a good fight, but in the end, if your arguments have any merit, you’d win your lawsuit and get significant money from largest companies in the world."
Announcer voice "the lawsuits, did not, in fact have any merit whatsoever."
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
You keep speaking of these hypothetical large organizations as if the existence of piracy is tied to their hip. They’re… genuinely not. The arrest of The Pirate Bay’s founders didn’t kill off the site.
Unfortunately for you, what file formats get used isn’t dependent on how often pirates use them. MP4s, WAVs, Word Documents, Powerpoint presentations etc get used because they’re far more compatible and useful than whatever format Tero Pulkinnen invented.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
The fact that you didn’t preemptively block Scott Cawthon’s work is proof that you were doing nothing of the sort to start with. It proves that your tech doesn’t do all the copyright overblocking you claim it’s capable of. The fact that you didn’t punish yourself based on those stricter copyright laws is an indication that not only are they impossible to effectively enforce, you don’t believe in applying them to yourself the way you demand of others.
This is why the government of Finland won’t fund your mansion or need to have your dick sucked by every human on the planet.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Maybe you can show how to import mp4 file to the system. I currently know no such way how to get hollywood movie displayed with my system. This is the critical test case, there exists enough hollywood movie pirates in the market that practices are needed against this exact use case, and given that you claim I am not doing such practices, it is your task to get a hollywood movie displayed with my system. (hint, that will fail miserably)
Re: Re: Re:13
Your software couldn’t block you from importing and exporting an image of an unlicensed full-body model of a character from the Five Nights at Freddy’s franchise.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
The critical issue isn’t freddys content, but instead you need to show how to get hollywood movie imported. I’m waiting for your proof.
Re: Re: Re:15
If Meshpage couldn’t stop its own creator from infringing upon someone else’s copyright in one instance, it will never be able to stop anyone else from doing it in any and every context and instance possible.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
It already does that, given that there’s no customers using the system. Your own calculations about popularity of meshpage proves this aspect. When no customers exist, it "stops anyone else from doing it" and "in every context and instance possible". Of course the problem gets more difficult when more customers start using the system, but current situation is that it actively prevents anyone from infringing…
This is what you get from failing to use meshpage. When you cannot get even cube to the screen with builder tool, I can use this "no customers" -proof to shoot down your claims.
Re: Re: Re:17
It didn’t stop you. Ergo, it doesn’t already do that. When it can stop you from infringing on any and all copyrights everywhere in the world in any and every context and instance, you let me know.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
It only needs to stop my customers. Given that there’s no customers, it’s automatic QED.
Re: Re: Re:19
Meshpage won’t stop any other potential users from infringing copyrights if it can’t stop you from doing the same damn thing. Ergo, it can’t prevent all copyright infringement. When it can stop you from infringing on any and all copyrights everywhere in the world in any and every context and instance, you let me know.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:20 Re:
I have admin access to the web server, and the web server allows uploading any files => thus it can never prevent me from doing it.
It’s only regular users who don’t have admin access which are being controlled by the system.
Re: Re: Re:21
Then Meshpage can never stop all infringement. You’re not legally allowed to infringe on other people’s copyrights because you made a piece of software.
When Meshpage can stop you from infringing on any and all copyrights everywhere in the world in any and every context and instance, you let me know.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:22 Re:
This was never required. I cannot help people who do not use meshpage, and they remain to be biggest contributor to infringements.
This isn’t true. If I can afford to pay 2 billion worth of damage awards for willful infringement, the infringement is just ok. Sadly the 2 billion is slightly too much for any ordinary (non-criminal) people. So to get permission to infringe, you need to become criminal enough to obtain 2 Billion bucks.
Copyright infringement consiquences are just monetary damage awards. If I want to burn 2 billion bucks, infrngement is just ok.
Re: Re: Re:23
You’ve made it clear in the past that you think any computer application that can allow any kind of infringement to occur should kneecap its own primary functionality to prevent that infringement, no matter how miniscule. Don’t be a hypocrite now that your closely held opinion is inconvenient to your argument.
Like I said: You’re not legally allowed to infringe on other people’s copyrights because you made a piece of software. You can’t afford to pay a copyright fine any more than could the average person (that you want to see wiped off the face of the Earth).
Only if you look at it in the vacuum of the punishment in and of itself. There’s also the scarlet letter of having that fine put on a potential criminal record with authorities, not to mention the potential of being fined such a large amount of money that you end up financially destitute.
And to think, that’s the kind of punishment you want for yourself. After all, you did infringe upon Scott Cawthon’s copyrights. Is he not entitled to sue you into oblivion (both metaphorical and literal) as you believe any copyright holder should be able to do to an infringer, or do his copyrights not matter to you because you’d never heard of him before you were told you explicitly (and maybe knowingly) violated his copyrights on the Five Nights at Freddy’s game franchise?
Go fuck yourself, you genocidal hypocrite.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:24 Re:
Yes, this is similar to how cars should have seatbelts or guns shouldn’t be sold without permission to criminals. Explosives would need to be controlled enough to not let criminals blow up government buildings. Airplanes have security door to prevent terrorist to crash the plane to world trade center.
In similar manner, computer applications should have mechanisms to prevent pirates from using it for copyright infringements.
Re: Re: Re:25 Re:
The examples you brought up are a thing because human life is at risk. Nobody dies because someone thinks that someone else infringed on copyright. There hasn’t been such a case brought to court, but you’re welcome to try to file one and claim someone died because Meshpage was used.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:26 Re:
I don’t know any cases dealing with meshpage, but I’ve also created phones. And there has been instances of youtube videos from darwin awards section of youtube where phone users staring at phone screen were killed after tripping over from a cliff. Guess which part of the phones I implemented: (hint it’s the phone screen)… So I have experience with creating products which actively killed people.
Product developers can only try to avoid product features where there is danger of people dying because of the product. With large number of users, those statistical chances of someone getting killed cannot be completely eliminated. But the situation is even worse if those problems are not actively fixed from the products that we use.
Re: Re: Re:27
Crafting a 3D model of a phone in Meshpage doesn’t mean you’ve made an actual phone, toilet paper man.
Re: Re: Re:27 Re:
Not that you’ve ever actually shown any proof for this, but let’s extrapolate your claim as follows:
In other words, these "preventions" and "overblocking" you claim to demand from everything and everyone else don’t even exist for the products you admit to working on. If even you won’t overblock properly, why do you think anyone else is going to?
Re: Re: Re:25
How do you expect anyone to do this without the power of God? Your program couldn’t even stop you from infringing on someone else’s copyright.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:26 Re:
it happens the same way as any other product development. You analyze the problem, find issues that need to be solved, find solutions to the problems and then implement your requirements. Then its just shipping it to end users.
Re: Re: Re:27
Your program couldn’t stop you from violating Scott Cawthon’s copyrights despite your claims that it could do exactly that. If you can’t prevent yourself from infringing upon copyrights even by accident, how can you reasonably and realistically expect anyone else living in actual reality to do the same without having access to the power of God?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:28 Re:
I never claimed that. The actual claim has been that mp4 files are not working with our system because of copyright reasons. Scott’s material is not mp4, so does not apply.
Re: Re: Re:29
You have claimed in the past that Meshpage can and will be able to prevent any and all copyright infringement. It couldn’t even stop you from doing that. For someone who thinks they’re God’s gift to copyright law, you are not without sin.
Re: Re: Re:29 Re:
That is one of your claims. What you have also claimed is that stricter copyright laws require that products and software must overblock to prevent all instances of copyright infringement, in accordance to what the RIAA demands, and what filtering laws like Article 13/17 are intended to achieve.
The fact that you can’t pirate a MP4 file with Meshpage is meaningless drivel. What is especially damning is that despite the copyright protection and enforcement technology you claim to have built into Meshpage, that didn’t stop you from infringing on Scott Cawthon’s model – or, for that matter, using a file format that allowed you to use it. By stricter copyright law, your usage of someone else’s proprietary file format and model file contributed to copyright infringement. The most ideal penalty per RIAA standards would be to have you sued out of house and home, and your project purged from the Internet. Plus a lengthy stay in prison.
You would, of course, have supported this if you truly respected the RIAA. The truth is that you’re a hypocritical scumbag who would murder old people if it meant the government promising to kiss the tip of your flaccid penis.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:30 Re:
This is exactly why standard file formats are dangerous. There exists existing market of compatible files, with no-one knowing owners or licenses of the material. While meshpage has good copyright system, it still needs to take risks on some areas, i.e. some standard file formats are used for compability reasons.
This is the reason why we implemented those standard file formats last… i.e. they were not important enough requirements to get implemented first. Our fundamental data structures embedded deep inside meshpage are independent of the file format details. So when pirates start using our system for evil deeds, we can easily disable those areas of the system which cause most damage and still have a working 3d modelling system.
This is what it means to build a stable system which follows copyright to the letter. You need to build the system independently, in a clean room, without help from pirate community or other outside world, and then build a stable system that do not break if criminals get access to your system.
Re: Re: Re:31 Re:
Or you could have simply stuck to your guns and went all in on your "stricter copyright law" gamble. You could have marketed your ridiculous adherence to copyright enforcement as a market niche. It would be an absolutely terrible idea, but literally nothing stopped you from doing it.
What you just claimed is nothing short of a full admission that you chose to weaken your own copyright for no real benefit, which led to you committing infringement. Genius move, there.
Re: Re: Re:29 Re:
So… you’re saying that you blocked a basic function that would make the software useless for a lot of people because you’re so intent on enforcing copyright…. but the tool is free to use for all sorts of other types of copyright infringement if people wish?
Good work, as ever….
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:30 Re:
same way as how seatbelts are making cars completely useless because you don’t have freedom to bump your head to the windshield when drunk driver crashes into your car.
Yes. Unfortunately this is the current situation. Mp4 was explicitly blocked, but I allowed standard file formats like .obj, .gltf, .stl etc files… Reasoning what makes this work is that there isn’t significant piracy operations that handle these file formats. All piirates are focused on hollywood’s movie output, and couldn’t care less about 3d models…
Re: Re: Re:31 Re:
Conflating self-harm and loss of life with fair use isn’t going to make your blind worship of the RIAA any more reasonable.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:32 Re:
The rule that allows RIAA worship is actually talking about "all entities in the world", and doesn’t pick RIAA specifically. If someone is significant player iin the world, their position needs to be part of our copyright system. RIAA is good because its generally despised, and thus an underdog. Similar reasons we bash microsoft and raise linux to the podium even though linux boxes are known to be slower and less compatible than your ordinary windows box.
Re: Re: Re:33 Re:
Underdog status is, by itself, hardly a meaningful metric for whether someone’s cause merits support. When the RIAA was at the peak of their activity they were suing people for millions of dollars. Of course, most of those millions never got paid via court, or were instead foisted via out-of-court settlements and the profits distributed among Cary Sherman’s underlings, not the artists that were supposedly stolen from. They weren’t an underdog then, and were just as hated for their egregious copyright abuse.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:34 Re:
RIAA’s program for suing ordinary people for copyrights didn’t really gain much bonus points for RIAA. But that’s the action that needs to be taken when your customer base freerides your work from non-authorized sources. The piracy activity needs to stop, and the area that uses the songs etc need to pay their license fees. The whole investment can only be profitable if all the areas where the product is available are contributing to the coffers of the company. Together all the areas are absorbing the large development cost. If some areas are missing/not contributing to the bottom line, there will be gap between predicted money amount and the realized money amount. And this gap needs to come from somewhere. The company needs to sell more t-shirts without getting compensation to fill the gap.
Re: Re: Re:35
You’re not just a Nazi, you’re a gigantic dumbass. You actually believe suing people will turn them into customers.
Re: Re: Re:36 Re:
Not for a lack of trying, the RIAA set that precedent for him. What Tero Pukeface doesn’t realize is that the RIAA has, by and large, abandoned that strategy – or at the very minimum, quietly left the likes of Malibu Media to do it for them.
Re: Re: Re:35 Re:
Here’s the thing: when the RIAA started out with their arguments and lawsuits, people generally agreed with them that freely downloading music was at least morally questionable. They’d successfully managed to convince people, at some level, that artists were being stolen from.
Where the RIAA failed, and where you continue to fail, was the idea that they could then grab this money from wherever they wanted, particularly the people who were least capable of fighting back. The RIAA is famous for starting the trend of suing people for music downloads – but they’re far more notorious for suing the wrong people. Anyone from children to grandmothers, army veterans to blind people, homeless people, people without a computer, dead people, were fair game to the RIAA. And this is where they lost all possible goodwill, on top of the clearly ridiculous claims of artists losing billions of dollars in profit.
When you claim a loss that comprises money that doesn’t exist, and demand thousands of dollars from people incapable of paying it back, while you flaunt an extremely rich and lavish lifestyle… nobody is going to believe your claims. Eventually people will realize you’re bluffing. There’s a reason why the RIAA eventually stopped publishing their litigation stats in the newspapers. They realized that it gave people an out to scrutinize their actions and found that it was largely unfavorable. Eventually the RIAA stopped openly suing people. Which led to your friends at Prenda Law and Malibu Media picking up the slack for porn, and got themselves arrested.
It’s called "sometimes businesses make losses". It’s part and parcel of business and life. And say the gap "needs" to come from somewhere – you still don’t get to rob people to make up for your business line. In the same way, just because you think someone got murdered, you don’t get to visit the nearby town and kill everybody just to make sure.
Re: Re: Re:36 Re:
You know why this gap is so important. When you create a product, it has some keywords that your product owns. For example product name is important identifier which allows finding your product. These keywords are important part of the problem. Basically, government has some tasks to do, and the only way to get market implement government’s requirements is to encode the requirements to those keywords. So when government employee finds a keyword when examining some area of the world, they’ll map the keywords to the requrements that they want the same author to implement. And then they buy some adverticements and expects people to watch television.
Now when pirates distribute the product to areas which that author cannot control, those government’s keyword mapping systems go haywire. Some authors whose works are being distributed without permission gets more requirements from the government than what he can really handle, simply because pirates expanded his area of the world without passing compensation to the author.
Large companies that are creating millions of products to customers are in significant amount of trouble because of this government’s keyword mapping system. Basically even after distributing government’s requirements to all employees, the signal is significantly more powerful than what humans can withstand. Large chunk of the govt’s requirements need to be discarded if the robot that normally builds those devices are not currently available for that task. Humans need to do those jobs, and the signals coming from the system are getting more and more powerful.
Now returning to the gap problem. When government is pushing people to implement more requirements, but all areas of the world that are contributing to the requirements that you must implement are not contributing to the money, the government’s keyword analysis system will think that you have more money available than what is the real situation. This gap between keyword analysis system money amount and your bank account money amount is dangerous, because if it continues long time, you’ll eventually run out of money and government cannot do anything to help you fill your bank account when government’s own system is saying you should have signifiicant money reserves available from license fees from the pirate area. When pirates failed to pass the money to the author, the author eventually runs out of money and starves to death.
Basically government needs to know who gets license fees from copyrighted works and only way to calculate that is by counting how many times his product keywords are mentioned around the world. When pirates are using the product, it contributes to the keyword system, but fails to pass money to the author. The keywords and the money need to be in balance, i.e. one-to-one mapping between keyword mentions around the world and license fees obtained from customers.
Re: Re: Re:37 Re:
Here’s a tip: the government does not work like a search engine. Maybe in the hellish dystopian cybernetic mindscape you have from a 1960s sci-fi short story, but in reality the government doesn’t operate like Google.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:38 Re:
to participate in government’s keyword mapping system, you need $200 money and fill in paperwork for your very own trademark. After govt approves your trademark, you’ll be noticed by govt’s systems and can benefit from your work.
Re: Re: Re:39 Re:
Let’s assume for the benefit of the doubt that your government works like a search engine – have you applied for the Meshpage trademark? And let’s assume that you have, what "benefit from your work" are you even getting from providing a free-to-download app that in your own words, you’re not earning enough money from?
Re: Re: Re:40 Re:
yes, i have registered trademark meshpage.org(R)…
Re: Re: Re:41 Re:
And? Registering for the trademark doesn’t give you money if you don’t leverage it. Which, by all accounts, you haven’t. Putting it on itch.io for maybe several hundred free downloads is not a sound business strategy, but you knew that already.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:42 Re:
At least its available to real customers. It’s just customer’s own problem if they fail to use the material. I.e. our software releases are well executed and available for customers.
99% of projects never get to the stage where their releases are available to customers.
Re: Re: Re:43 Re:
An available release means very little if a customer downloads it and discovers that it’s broken. You’ve seen it for yourself – several hundred downloads and nobody cares enough to send you feedback or work done with it.
Never mind the fact that you’ve heavily marketed Meshpage as an inbuilt 3D engine that automatically works on webpages, so the idea that anything needs to be downloaded is very strange.
And even after an available release, that’s not a guarantee that a product will be successful, or even be useful. Juicero being an infamous example. Having a trademark will not guarantee this either.
The best you could do with it is if someone tried to infringe on Meshpage’s trademark, in which case you could sue them. Which you’ve yet to do, because the truth is your best hope for this happening is praying that Google Images uses a screenshot of your work.
Re: Re: Re:44 Re:
How many times you’ve detected my software release to be broken?
Re: Re: Re:45 Re:
Don’t ask me. Ask the hundreds of people who allegedly downloaded your software. Your results – or, in your case, the lack of results – is sufficient explanation for how useful your product is.
Re: Re: Re:23 Re:
Stricter copyright laws say otherwise.
Being able to afford a fine does not suddenly give you a license to continue the infringement. It means you fucked up on copyright and the law demands money for it. For someone who keeps demanding everyone else follow stricter copyright law you have an exceedingly carefree attitude about actually following it.
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
The fact that nobody uses your software is not proof that your copyright enforcement works. Especially considering that your copyright systems failed to preemptively block your innocent infringement, which the RIAA requires.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Nobody’s importing MP4s into Meshpage because nobody uses Meshpage. But the fact that you can’t import "illicit" Hollywood movies into Meshpage is a meaningless piece of trivia. I can’t import Hollywood movies into Blender for the same reason because it’s not a file format that software is built for. It might render out animated files and movies but it can’t do a thing to a movie file.
The claim that you are not doing "such practices" is based on the fact that your "overblocking" failed to block a case of innocent infringement, which stricter copyright law would mandate a preemptive block for. Never mind that this failure to block it is, again, a damning indictment against any claim that any blocking system can be perfect, but is proof that you don’t block as much as you claim to do. File format incompatibility is neither blocking nor copyright enforcement. It’s like claiming that a "Ladies" sign in front of a toilet is proof that the toilet has anti-rape protection built in.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
If this is true, then blender is also implementing copyright protections for their software. You have consistently claimed that such copy protections are impossible to get working, but now blender is also implementing those same protections.
When mp3 was introduced and half of the planet was pirating those song files, many responsible software developers decided not to support those file formats. This meant that only the illegal products were using mp3 files even though the file format had significant compability advantages, and those products which supported the file format were sued (kazaa, napster etc) successfully by recording companies.
Basically software developers need to decide whether they are able to protect copyright carefully enough, before deciding if some file format will be supported by his software.
Re: Re: Re:15 Any day now.... any day...
" many responsible software developers decided not to support those file formats."
You got a source for that assertion chummer? Or is this like the magical legal statute, for the wrong country, that you still can’t find?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16 Any day now.... any day...
You can check all the software developers that RIAA didn’t sue yet.
Re: Re: Re:17 Still not gonna do your homework for you
So no then.
You’re 0 for 2 when it comes to producing evidence. Almost like you’re completely full of shit.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
The fact that I cannot play a CD on a cassette player is not proof that the cassette player has protections built in to prevent copyright infringement via CD. In the same way, the fact that a chocolate bar cannot kill me by giving me a stab wound is not proof that the manufacturer has protection against stabbing built into their food products.
On the contrary, MP3 was still used as a file format by multiple programs during the heyday of Kazaa and Limewire. MP3 still exists as a legitimate file format today, in fact. This fantasy of the MP3 getting outlawed flat out did not happen.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
do you understand that "circumventing technical protection measures" means that when CD and casettes are not compatible with each other, circumventing this limitation (via cable for example) is actually illegal operation. I.e. copying your music from old casettes to newer cd-rom’s might be illegal operation because it circumvents technical protection measures.
Re: Re: Re:17
How long should people be jailed in prisons/internment camps for the act of format shifting?
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
Still waiting on that news clipping…
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
Making backups are not illegal.
As a programmer, making a backup of anything you do should be completely permissible. You’d know this, if you weren’t such a money-grubbing rentseeker.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
The video editor in blender can import and export anything supported by ffmpeg, which include mp4. This means you can use Blender to create an animation, and cut it into, or overlay it with an video from an external source.
Note for T.P. a video camera or phone can be used to create a video as say a background for a blender animation, so blocking common formats blocks legal activities as well as copyright infringement. As I said somewhere upthread, you approach to copyright would make the world quieter than the inside of a Trappist monolatry. (Hint Trappist’s do not engage in casual conversation).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
this is why copyright maximalist practices are needed. Any other way and you’ll have incentive to accept 2 billion damage award instead of follow copyright. If you don’t allow removal of some legal activities, then you’ll end up violating copyright. But products never were able to support all use cases that you can think of: your pocket knife is simply not able to extract co2 from atmosphere, even if extracting co2 was a priority for your green hippies.
Re: Re: Re:16
The only way to fully, wholly, 100% no-bullshit guarantee that no one can violate copyright even by accident is to prevent any- and everyone on the planet from doing any and every conceivable activity that would even remotely infringe on any and every copyright from any- and everywhere in the world. No typing, no painting, no 3D modeling, no singing, no playing instruments, no dancing, no photography, no passing down stories via oral tradition—and that doesn’t even get into experiences like watching movies or listening to music with friends, taking notes on books you’re reading, quoting any sort of cultural work that can be quoted…basically, what you want is for the world to be silenced from here on out.
That is copyright maximalism—or your form of it, at least—taken to its only logical end point: Not even the corporations would dare make new cultural works because even they would fear stepping on each other’s toes. If you want a world like that for yourself, go live in a monastery. Leave the rest of us who yearn to experience and create new works of art to our own creative devices.
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
Nice that you ended this bullshit description to the correct place, i.e. creative devices. Since I already created over 100 million of those buggers, it’s perfectly fine place to stop the description. I.e. now you’re in my domain.
Entering our domain has serious consiquences, you will be subjected to some strict rules:
1) copyrights need to be respected
2) information flow is controlled
3) coding conventions need to different from anyone else in the world
4) standard file format usage is restricted
5) google search cannot be used
6) your output needs to be free of copyright problems
7) deadlines must be met without exception
8) even a single pixel cannot be broken on customer release
9) you must never click scam site adverticement banner
10) seatbelts must be used or the car shouldn’t move
11) usage of taxis is recommended if there’s danger of missing deadlines
Re: Re: Re:18
See? You’re just proving my point: If people had to follow your “rules” to the absolute letter, they would never be able to create new works of art and culture.
And we all know what this means to you: “Nobody can violate any copyright for any reason under any circumstances.” (Let he who is without sin…) Under your idea of copyright, Fair Use/Dealing wouldn’t exist, which would leave no room for parodies of existing cultural works and would kill both memes and fan art almost immediately.
That sounds like some Nazi bullshit, bro. You gonna burn all the books you don’t want people to read?
Unless you think everyone in the world should be coding in their own self-made programming language that every computer in the world should be able to automagically parse without issue or delay—and that seems to be what you’re suggesting here—coding is always going to be a field of creative endeavour where certain conventions will remain the same.
Goodbye to JPEG, PNG, and GIF formats. Goodbye to plain text files. Goodbye to PDFs and EPUBs, to ZIPs and RARs, to MP3s and FLACs. All those formats, gone, like tears in rain…because you think that, like coding, everyone in the world should have to develop their own file format before they can store information of any kind.
And with all those formats gone, the devices that rely on them die with them. I hope you don’t have a digital camera of some kind—under your “rules”, it wouldn’t be able to work because it uses standardized file formats.
My assumption is that this would apply to all other search engines. In which case: This ties into your second rule, which now seems far more Nazi-like than you probably thought it would.
No one but God can guarantee that a new cultural work will be free from any and all copyright problems. Despite your demented delusions of deification, you are not God. Neither is anyone else.
Tell me, tp, do you believe in the idea of “work will set you free”? ????
(Besides, this has nothing to do with copyright.)
No one can guarantee that…and besides, like the previous “rule”, this has nothing to do with copyright.
Awww, did someone do a clicky-wicky and get a nasty ol’ virus because he thought hot MILFs really were in his area? And again, this has nothing to do with copyright, and neither do your next two rules.
For someone who wants people to use a program that was intentionally designed to help them create new cultural works, you seem hell-bent on making sure they can’t actually make anything with it—or at least live in a world where any deviation from your personalized copyright maximalist norm will be punished with unpayable fines, excessive prison sentences, and possibly even torture or execution.
Are you absolutely sure you’re not a Nazi, tp?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
wikipedia says our practices are coming from soviet union, so no nazis here.
Re: Re: Re:20
And yet, your spiel about information control and your willingness to fine or jail people to the point of death for violating your “rules” says otherwise.
You’re a Nazi, tp. You might not like it, but you should learn to live with it.
Re: Re: Re:21 Re:
So you’re going against the ultimate truth found from wikipedia?
Re: Re: Re:22 Re:
Oh now you’ve learned to quote actual sources.
Re: Re: Re:22
Nope, just working with what you give me, you Nazi prick.
Re: Re: Re:22 Re:
Mate, you’re not notable enough for Wikipedia to give a damn.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
Save for maybe the multibillionaires running the world’s financial systems into the ground, nobody accepts having to pay $2 billion in damages. For that matter, a court would not award this sort of fantasy number, simply because most people aren’t capable of paying fines this big. Not even if you gave them the option to sell their vital organs or kill themselves, a prospect which I know gives your twisted little mind a happy erection.
I know you keep trying to boast the "$2 billion" number like some godsend from Oracle v. Google, but here’s the thing: Oracle lost that gamble. They made an excessively bold claim and an even bolder demand for money, which they did not get. Because the claim that Google did not follow copyright was an absolutely unmeritorious claim that the judge recognized and shut down before Oracle’s idiocy was permitted to go any further.
I mean, kudos to you for this one moment of fleeting honesty. This is the sort of reason why copyright isn’t respected, particularly copyright at the level you want. Because not only have you been proven to break your own laws and violate copyright yourself, innocent or otherwise, you don’t even have the balls to hold yourself accountable.
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
The number 1 reason pirates accept this is "content owners are not going to see a dime because we’re already in brink of bankrupt"…
Re: Re: Re:18
Why do you want people to die for violating copyright?
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
That’s already unavoidable given the 2 billion damage awards associated with copyright infringement. After paying 2 billion to content owners, the pirate is very near the edge where humans die for hunger and lack of apartment in -30C temperatures.
Re: Re: Re:20
Again: Why do you want people to die for violating copyrights?
Re: Re: Re:21 Re:
You need to worship the wall to understand why copyright is necessary for proper functioning of the markets. It’s the power of the wall that determines the fate of copyright violators. They either become evil who cannot control the power the wall gives, or they quickly learn how to control copyright’s power. Its the subtle control that allows wielding powerful items without causing damage to your surroundings, It’s this damage that copyright violators cannot avoid, and your neighbours will hope you were dead rather than let you access the power of the wall.
Re: Re: Re:22
Again, and see if you can answer the actual question this time: Why do you want people to die for violating copyrights?
Re: Re: Re:23 Re:
already answered.
Re: Re: Re:24 Re:
The answer: He thinks that copyright law will somehow force his competitors out of the market and users to use Meshpage for whatever reason, allowing him to cash in on the money and respect he thinks he’s entitled to from the government of Finland. For some reason he thinks acting like a cultist who’s read too many comic books will help his case.
Re: Re: Re:25
Oh, if only he were a cultist. Then at least there’d be a chance of him drinking the Flavor-Aid.
Re: Re: Re:25 Re:
Those "competitors" will disappear who decided to cash in on other people’s work. Only by doing everything yourself, you can create products free of copyright problems, and when projects become larger and more work is piling up, the developers either do copyright infringement, or shut down their project or run to bahamas with customer’s money. But either way, projects that grow too large will end up in chopping bin. This tendency for larger projects to disappear is good opportunity for meshpage.
Re: Re: Re:26
Why do you think you should have the right to both metaphorically and literally kill your competition?
Re: Re: Re:26 Re:
None of the problems you point out – such as copyright infringement or running off with money they’re not entitled to – are issues that exclusively affect larger developers. Smaller developers can do the same. Especially when it comes to madmen from Finland who believe in murdering people to claim copyright money.
I get that Google makes for a very convenient target to lay copyright infringement claims and lawsuits at. The problem you have is that none of those attempts has been successful, and there have been no attempts to haul Blender, Autodesk, or other competing software developers to court for copyright infringement that you claim exists. This "tendency" and "opportunity" you claim is good for Meshpage flat out does not exist. The only way it might exist is if you tried suing those larger developers yourself.
Re: Re: Re:27 Re:
This doesn’t work, because they simply fail to use the material that I have created. The entity that sues them needs to be someone whose work was used by the larger entity in their organisation. There’s about zero chance of getting google to use anything I create as a hobby. So someone else needs to sue them.
But the system as a whole works nicely when authors whose work is being ripped off will stand up and call their bluff. While the progress is slow, copyright is designed for progress of science and useful arts.
Re: Re: Re:28
Then why do you want to use copyright as a means of shutting down literally every form of creative expression?
Re: Re: Re:29 Re:
they don’t need to shut down their operation, its enough that they pay for the priviiledge…
Re: Re: Re:30
And when no one but a couple of corporations can pay for the privilege of being able to create new artistic works without having to worry about being executed for doing so—a concept which you appear to wholeheartedly endorse, you Nazi fuck—creative expression will have been shut down anyway.
Re: Re: Re:31 Re:
You’re happy to pass some money to the shop when you take their bread from the shelf, but why is paying for the software so difficult concept to you? Is there some fundamental difference between taking a piece of software and taking a bread from the shop. If you fail to pay your purchase, it’s called stealing.
Re: Re: Re:32
You haven’t been talking about paying to use software—you’ve been talking about stopping people from using software of any kind to create new cultural works and having them executed (in deed or in spirit) for daring to violate copyright. We can all read your comment history, dude. Hell, here’s a list of positions you’ve either implied or outrighted stated you hold within at least the past year:
Granted, I might be exaggerating your positions, but not by all that much. And none of that gets into your unproven claims of basically having invented more mobile phones and gadgetry than anyone else alive.
You are a deranged, delusional, likely-suffering-from-dementia lunatic. You take no offense to, and possibly even celebrate, being called a Nazi. No one else who comments here is anywhere near as batshit insane as you are, and one of the usual trolls is a guy who keeps claiming to be on the verge of suing this site into a crater (among the more…personalized threats of violence he’s made over the years). I know this is absolutely ludicrous coming from me, a guy with a shitload of mental problems of his own, but trust me when I say this, Tero: Log off of your computer, go touch grass for a few hours, then seek some serious therapy from a trained and accredited psychiatric professional.
Please, help yourself before you wreck yourself, you genocidal Nazi fuckwit.
Re: Re: Re:33 Re:
You’re missing the point. Not paying for software is the same thing as violating copyright.
Re: Re: Re:34
And you’re avoiding all of mine, you genocidal Nazi fuckwit.
Re: Re: Re:34 Re:
And how much money have you paid for the Internet browser you’re using right now?
Re: Re: Re:35 Re:
About the same as for the free libraries he’s admitted using and the models he’s been caught ripping off – though at least the latter does appear to be actual infringement.
Re: Re: Re:34 Re:
"Not paying for software is the same thing as violating copyright."
While it’s nice of you to announce that you should be prosecuted for various infringing activities just by commenting here in that case – let alone all the free stuff you depend on for your shoddy site to run on – you’re really just helping make the point that your fantasy version of copyright could not work in the real world.
Re: Re: Re:35 Re:
That’s quite bold statement, after watching copyright work properly for last 200 years, now when the label says there’s deadline in 2 weeks, you decide that the stuff that worked fine for 200 years is now not working at all.
Re: Re: Re:36 Re:
Stories were told. music written, and paintings and sculptures produced for far longer in human history that the short 200 years of creators having copyrights over their works. Unless and until someone builds a system that can keep up with the creative output of the human race, rather than the less than 1% that is accepted by the traditional gatekeepers, copyright has to be considered fundamentally broken.
Re: Re: Re:36 Re:
Copyright might have worked "properly" for the last 200 years, up until recent times when the RIAA made criminal intimidation of grandmothers and war veterans into a business model. And this is only "copyright", not your fantasy of "stricter copyright rules" that you yourself can’t even hold up to the standards required.
Curious statement to make. Just what deadline are you claiming is being made here?
Re: Re: Re:36 Re:
Is the deadline a part of the version of copyright you’re hallucinating as well? There’s no deadline on this Earth.
Meanwhile, in the real world, copyright is known to have many problems and is some areas very broken, sometimes as a direct result of the measures previous taken to "fix" it. This is an ongoing discussion, but it’s one that does not fit what you have imagined to protect yourself from addressing your own failure.
But, given that you seem to be mainly basing your hallucinations on US copyright law and not even the law where you live, I can understand why you get confused.
Re: Re: Re:37 Re:
Yes. To have copyright on your writings, you must be able to output that text to some medium. Copyright law says that the writing needs to be in some medium. Thus deadlines are needed, so that we don’t need to wait until heat death of the universe to obtain his manuscript.
Re: Re: Re:38 Re:
About the only thing accurate with that statement is the general idea that anything that gets written down qualifies for copyright. Of course, people have previously made copyright claims on ideas that others have implemented, on the basis that they thought about it first but never wrote it down. So even your rules don’t stop people from copyright trolling… not that you’ve had an issue with it.
Re: Re: Re:38
I could write a short story right now and wait a decade to release it in some form, and I could still get a copyright on that story because copyright law doesn’t have a deadline on when you can obtain a copyright. Did your mother drop you on your head as a child, or did your idiocy develop later in life, you Nazi schmuck?
Re: Re: Re:33 Re:
The exaggeration has been, by and large, entirely on Tero’s side. There’s something to be said about the diehard dedication to the copyright cultist cause on top of pretending to be a robot of all things, but I think we can safely say that Tero is a walking public service announcement/warning of "this is your brain on copyright".
Some people only learn when it’s far too late. The fact that over a decade has passed and this knucklehead has somehow not been completely doxxed and destroyed for the danger he poses to a decent society suggests that he’s incredibly well insulated. Must be something in the Finnish welfare system… which he actively also mocks. One hopes that it’ll only be a matter of time.
Re: Re: Re:32 Re:
If you choose to make Meshpage a free to download, free to use software that is entirely reliant on donations… not paying for it isn’t morally objectionable. It has the drawback of making you less money than you would have preferred, but that doesn’t suddenly make it a crime. And even then, in your own words you’ve made $45 over the eight years that Meshpage was released, so clearly you are getting paid. Which is pretty surprising considering that in your own claims, you have no users.
Re: Re: Re:33 Re:
So that’s the level of salary you’d prefer to work for? Are you how efficient in writing software? I might have extra 45 dollars I could use for software development. And the contract with the evil is 8 years in length.
Re: Re: Re:34 Re:
"So that’s the level of salary you’d prefer to work for?"
You do know – that was your choice. If you wanted a salary, you should have chosen to work for someone paying a salary (although, I understand quite perfectly why you’d fail to find someone willing to do so).
Otherwise, you’re not the first person to fail miserably at selling enough of his freelance work to live on. You’re just the first to have spent so many years whining about it. Some of your much more successful competitors have spent less time building their companies and writing their code from scratch than you have spent here whining about how nobody’s giving you free money.
If you didn’t magically get paid for offering nothing of worth, that’s nobody’s fault but your own for not providing it.
Re: Re: Re:34 Re:
There is a stark difference between working a 9 to 5 job and working a passion project that you willingly released to the public for free. I sure as hell am not going to do the client work I do now for $45 spread over eight years. But seeing that Meshpage has no users and no clients, $45 is still $45 more than any reasonable person would have expected to make on such a project.
You can stop lying to yourself, Tero. You’re not going to hire another programmer to do your dirty work because everyone here knows you can’t stand other humans. The thought that another human breathes oxygen on the same planet as you makes you cringe in disgust.
Re: Re: Re:35 Re:
I’ll just use my human-to-a-robot conversion tool and reprogram the robot to do my dirty work, repeating the same pattern 2000 times.
Re: Re: Re:36
Bold of you to assume you’re a skilled enough coder to make any kind of AI, let alone an AI that would want to work with a shithead like you, but go off if you must.
Re: Re: Re:36 Re:
And pray tell, what human do you think is going to sign up for your personal exploitation plan, especially after in your own words you believe that coding is not worth the effort?
You decry the exploitative practices of the industry, and yet you clearly have no problem using the same methods. You’re in no place to complain that nobody wants to do your "dirty work".
Re: Re: Re:37 Re:
I don’t need to tell the subjects beforehand. Techdirt has suitable pawns available and they’re far enough on the other side of the internet that if the experiment blows up in our face, the resulting explosion doesn’t reach finland where we’re located.
Re: Re: Re:38 Re:
Oh, what a desperate, petulant child you are. That’s your "human-to-robot" conversion plan? Somehow piss off enough people and that magically convinces them to convert into users? You’d be better off bringing Meshpage to schools and convincing them to let you teach kids how to use Meshpage – you know, the whole point of what Meshpage was designed for.
Then again, given that you hate the fact other humans exist and you look at other humans as free organ donors to fund your mansion, I doubt schools would let a psychopath like you anywhere near children.
Re: Re: Re:33 Re:
How this $48 is divided:
so the actual end result software is not in high demand.
=> looks like software development is not worth the effort…
Re: Re: Re:34 Re:
I’ll note that you said "emscripten" and not "Meshpage", as in a compiler software for C and C++ libraries – so it’s fair to say that unless you taught someone to use Meshpage, the $46 can’t even be attributed to Meshpage.
Finally, some self-awareness. Meshpage is flat out not in demand despite your constant insistence that it’s meant for children and will somehow revolutionize Web3 as we know it, despite you advertising it once in London and not actually bringing it around to schools in Finland to promote your work and why it’s even relevant for children. You can scream at the government for not deepthroating your flaccid phallus and it still won’t make the government mandate Meshpage by law.
Re: Re: Re:28 Re:
Stop the presses, even Tero Pulkinnen admits that his attempt at copyright trolling would fail. I mean, a lack of basis has never stopped copyright trolls from bringing baseless lawsuits before, but considering your deep-seated fanaticism for the RIAA I genuinely thought you’d be dumb enough to try it.
Try uploading your stuff to Google. That’s what Maria Schneider did by uploading her stuff to YouTube and suing YouTube for "facilitating piracy". Of course, her attempt to cheat the courts was recognized and the judge struck her evidence team down, and she quietly attempted to have them removed from the record after they were caught lying. Then again, when I said I hoped you’d try to sue Blender, I had absolutely no intention or desire that you’d be successful.
The above might have worked, In theory. In practical application and reality, all that’s happened is plenty of "content creators" embarrassing themselves in court thanks to their poorly misguided understanding of what they law lets them do, and making judges more wary and suspicious of granting them the blank checks they were hoping for.
If the progress is slow, it’s because you idiots keep slaying your own golden geese instead of waiting for the geese to lay the eggs.
Re: Re: Re:29 Re:
If the copyright trolling fails and settlement money or damage awards are not coming to this direction, then you have to figure out how to increase the $48 money amount associated with meshpage’s development. I’m waiting for your solution to this problem.
Re: Re: Re:30 Re:
For one thing, you’re not even attempting to sue people, so naturally no copyright trolling settlement fees are going to swing your way. Yeah, imagine that – even the nastiest copyright trolls still have to put in the work and actively sue people. If I had to hazard a guess, you would be even less successful if you ever attempted copyright trolling, but frankly that’s not something I have a problem with.
You’re the one who made the genius marketing ploy of advertising on one London bus and trying to flog a teenager’s trash talk as a positive review. You said it yourself, Meshpage is going to be profitable after you retire. It’s none of my damn business to help you not lose money from your idiocy.
Re: Re: Re:31 Re:
Yes, but problem seems to be that you are not able to solve the problem. This means that when you get old enough to start businesses yourself, it’s going to be spectacular failure. You cannot avoid that outcome, unless you have ideas how to avoid the $48 -problem.
Re: Re: Re:32
It isn’t their problem to solve. It’s yours.
Re: Re: Re:32 Re:
And? You seem, or want to think that this is somehow a "gotcha!" comment, that this speaks something about my perspective or magically invalidates what I have to say. Realistically, there have been plenty of solutions thrown at you. You could get a better marketing strategy than a projection on a London bus. You could collaborate with other people to give you better marketing campaigns or fix the bugs you overlooked. You could actually work with other developers to have viable prototypes or products to demonstrate whatever value Meshpage is supposed to accomplish.
You’ve done none of those things. The only thing you have done is harp on and on about how the RIAA is going to rape us all with its glorious copyright, and with you at their right hand, and desperately praying that all your competitors get nuked off the face of the earth for copyright infringement. I don’t need to give you a solution to tell you that that’s a fucking terrible business strategy.
Not everybody starts businesses. This is pretty damn important, because when everyone starts their own business they sure as hell aren’t going to work for somebody else.
On this, we might actually agree. You haven’t avoided the $48 problem and look at the spectacular failure that Meshpage is.
Re: Re: Re:33 Re:
"Not everybody starts businesses. This is pretty damn important, because when everyone starts their own business they sure as hell aren’t going to work for somebody else."
Also, the majority of people who start a new business understand that most businesses fail within the first couple of years. This is why banks will always demand a business plan, it’s a risky venture and lots of people who go into business will cut their losses and do something else when it fails.
Our friend here seems to have 2 problems – one is that he didn’t get anyone else’s input, he just powered ahead and pissed away a lot of money he had in savings rather than discuss with anyone with knowledge about how to run a business. The other is that he’s so pig-headed that even though people here have spend years telling him how he failed, his ego won’t let him accept failure and so he rambles on about how he’d be a millionaire if only his more competent competition was somehow removed.
Re: Re: Re:34 Re:
doing copyright infringement isn’t "more competent"…
Re: Re: Re:35 Re:
You can keep screaming this claim into the void and it won’t suddenly make Blender or Unreal Engine guilty of it.
Once again: if you think every other 3D modeling software developer is guilty of copyright infringement, you’re more than welcome to drag them to court and bring them to justice. Hell, you won’t even need to pray for Google to include your images in their Image Search, just say that you’re trying to sue Google and you’ll have plenty of idiots willing to waste their money on you.
Of course, the fact that what Blender et al are doing is in fact not copyright infringement will likely mean that no one would actually fund your initiative. But you were the one demanding a solution for a problem you refused to solve.
Re: Re: Re:36 Re:
I’ve only demanded removal of people who commit copyright infringement. So if blender isn’t doing it, then their removal is not requested (and your message isn’t relevant). It’s enough to get rid of pirates so that their user bases will need to find more legal alternatives.
Re: Re: Re:37 Re:
No, what you’ve demanded is for existing products in the market and the public domain to be destroyed so users would somehow inevitably get funneled to Meshpage.
You can lie now, but users reading your comment history – and every other thread that you take a shit on – know what your end goal is. You’ve claimed on multiple occasions that Blender steals the copyright of its users, or users are using Blender as a method of pirating Hollywood movies and therefore you want them destroyed from the market – despite multiple attempts to explain to you that’s not how copyright law works. And now that you’ve been caught out lying and misrepresenting your position, you think that a single hand wave is going to make up for your insidious falsehoods and intentional mistakes.
The fact is that nobody is going to use Meshpage. Its entire selling point as boasted by its creator is the fact that there are zero users. Everyone would be better off not using it. This fact is not going to change no matter how many times you suck off Cary Sherman.
Re: Re: Re:38 Re:
exact quotes needed, because I’ve never said anything like that.
Re: Re: Re:39 Re:
lol, mate, you want me to do your own detective work for you? I’ve sifted through thousands of your comments, most of which were reported for idiocy. And that’s not including the comments that you made before you were dumb enough to sign up for an account and have all your comments trackable.
As a heads up and example, here’s an entire thread of quotes where you argue that you don’t believe that fair use exists and everything that is fair use should be illegal – except, of course, when you’re the one doing it.
Re: Re: Re:40 Re:
1) fair use has nothing to do with blender
2) fair use is another name for "we did copyright infringement, but we consider it legal for some stupid reason"
3) fair use is only considered after the activity has been declared copyright infringing
4) fair use is only considered after both parties have collected millions of lawyer’s fees
5) fair use scope is very small — usually 3 words can be copied from copyrighted work to get it accepted as fair use
6) basically users of copyrighted works cannot ever rely on fair use to save their ass in copyright infringement lawsuit
Re: Re: Re:41
And that reason is typically “criticism and critique”—you know, feedback, which is something you seem to hate. Fair Use exists to allow…well, “fair” uses of copyrighted material that would otherwise be considered infringement. It’s hard to discuss a book you’ve read without being able to actually quote from the book whenever necessary, after all.
(Not that a Nazi like you reads books…)
Yes, Fair Use is a defense, not a right. But lots of people have gone to court for the sake of defending Fair Use, which has helped outline some boundaries in regards to what kind of uses are “fair”.
It isn’t that small by a long shot; your wanting it to be that small doesn’t make it so.
Rely on it? No. It isn’t some bulletproof defense for yoinking an entire book or movie or game off the Internet. But in regards to, say, using bits and pieces of a movie in a transformative review/critique of that movie—e.g., a CinemaSins video? Yes, that falls within the boundaries of Fair Use by sane (and non-Nazi) standards.
Re: Re: Re:41 Re:
That says it all, really. You think any reason that is a legal response against a copyright infringement claim is a "stupid reason". You’re genuinely tied to the hip at copyright trolling.
Re: Re: Re:42 Re:
Usually those reasons are not holding water under proper evaluation. Their ideas is that if they move server to other counrty or store only urls to the pirated content in their server that they’d protected by fair use against copyright infringements that happen in their pirate box user interface. Guess what, court only need to look at how users find the pirated content and determine that if user can find the pirated material, then courts can do that same process, and once they get access to the data, all their fair use defenses should go to trashcan. This is why those defenses are stupid, they simply never hold water. You just need to follow the same process that the end users of your pirate box is doing to find the infringements.
Re: Re: Re:43
Yes, yes, you want to kill Fair Use to stop any creative works that build on existing works from ever being able to be made. You hate other people being able to make new works because it means you actually have to compete instead of being able to force your shit on people.
We get it, you Nazi fuck. Try a different argument.
Re: Re: Re:43 Re:
Trying to paint every claim of fair use as someone trying to pirate a song or film is a sad, sad attempt to claim that fair use does not and should not exist.
For what it’s worth, a fair use claim against, say, The Pirate Bay is unlikely to succeed on fair use grounds. What fair use does protect against is copyright trolls claiming that someone can’t post a photo of themselves. Fair use also protects people writing articles or creating videos that critique music, films, games, etc. Now you might claim that critiquing content is (somehow) inherently harmful and should be discouraged – unfortunately for you, the courts disagree.
Re: Re: Re:44 Re:
This copyright exception does not exist in finland (and probably also in EU).
Instead of blatant copyright infringement with ripped off clips from the movies, we actually write text descriptions of the critique in magazines and newspapers. It doesn’t even need screenshot from the movie and you definitely does not need to build your critique youtube video solely from movie clips.
Re: Re: Re:45
If you’re going to tell me that Finland doesn’t have any book reviewers or game journalists or film critics at all, you’re more insane than I ever thought you were.
Good for them. But text can’t duplicate the experience of seeing a clip from a movie. It’s one thing to write about how Jackie Chan did action comedy exceptionally well; it’s a whole different experience—and a far more engrossing one—to watch a demonstration of his skill at action comedy as the principles behind it are discussed in detail.
I’m sorry that your Copyreich beliefs don’t allow you to watch, share, or even enjoy things like that video. But that’s your problem.
Re: Re: Re:46 Re:
Duplicating the movie experience isn’t valuable. Whatever the reviewer can contribute is valuable. Just ripping off someone else’s movie clips isn’t valuable. You actually need to create completely new content to cross the valuable treshold.
Re: Re: Re:47
That video isn’t trying to duplicate the experience of watching Jackie Chan’s movies—it’s trying to enrich and improve that experience by explaining the filmmaking processes storytelling elements of the action scenes in those movies. That might be possible to do in a text-only format, or even in video format without using any clips from his films, but the experience would not be anywhere near the same.
That video is a critique of both action scenes in Jackie Chan films and action scenes in modern Hollywood action movies. I’m sorry that you think such things shouldn’t exist—or should only be relegated to a dry, text-only format—but your Copyreich beliefs don’t run this world.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
Why would a reviewer that cannot create his own commercial quality video material be allowed to benefit from commercial quality movie clips? If they can only create text content, they should get benefits of the text content, not benefit from someone else’s movie clips. Some of the scenes in movies could cost 2 million bucks to create, but this reviewer fails to follow copyright and thus gets the material for free? Why did the first guy need to pay 2 million bucks for the material, when 2nd person got it for free? Shouldn’t it be more fair if both of them paid 1 million bucks?
Re: Re: Re:47
Because that’s how culture works, you wannabe book-burner—we build on what came before, whether it’s to make entirely new works or critique/criticize existing works. The video I pointed you is a critique of existing cultural works that, upon its publication, became a new cultural work in and of itself by virtue of the commentary about Jackie Chan and the action scenes in his films.
Under your Copyreich beliefs, they wouldn’t even be able to do that because quoting Jackie Chan for even a few words would be forbidden. And that’s not even getting into how you think the word processor used to type and arrange that text shouldn’t even allow someone to type that text into the word processor.
That’s life, bitch. Get used to it.
If you are seriously asking this question as if you don’t already know the answer, I legally have to inform you that you’re brain damaged and you should seek legitimate medical attention immediately.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
There’s also an important distinction to make here: a reviewer of a movie, whether it’s because he’s a paid writer for newspaper columns or an independent YouTube creator, did not get the scene that Tero is talking about "for free". They paid for, or received a legal copy of the movie to evaluate
For YouTube this can get a little grey, but for what it’s worth, reviewers like Decker Shado are loath to review things they don’t own a legal copy of. Anyone found to have downloaded a film to review it can be liable for copyright infringement claims and would be less able to hide behind fair use.
Nah, he’s just playing the old RIAA chestnut again of "I invested lots of money in this and everyone else should fund me".
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
This isn’t enough. The normal end-user license for a movie only allows user to watch the movie. It does not have permission to create derived works. The reviewer is clearly creating derived works, especially if they use clips from the movie itself.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
That’s why fair use exceptions exist.
You can get angry about it all you want, but qualifying for fair use does allow people to create derived works. It’s why Edvard Eriksen could even create a statue of the Little Mermaid, even though he wasn’t the original creator of the Little Mermaid, and why his descendants feel entitled to demand money off of something they didn’t create.
Creating something from derived works is literally what you claim is legal.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
It was already proven that users of copyrighted works cannot rely on fair use to save their ass from copyright infringement lawsuit.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
Really? Sure seems to get them out of lawsuits pretty well from what I can tell… More importantly, that is not an argument against Fair Use existing.
Re: Re: Re:45 Re:
"This copyright exception does not exist in finland (and probably also in EU)."
Oh, so now you cite Finnish law? You seem to have no problem pretending that US law covered every country when it suited you earlier.
But, since you insist on exposing the fact that you make this shit up in your head rather than consult any valid factual resource… Finland has been part of the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 2010, which was also ratified and adopted by the EU.
There certainly are difference s in the way it’s implemented in difference countries, but some exceptions related to fair use and fair dealing certainly do exist, albeit not in the same way that it’s defined in US law.
I’ll leave it up to the person who just announced that he’s ignorant of EU copyright law while simultaneously demanding people follow a version of copyright that doesn’t exist anywhere to do the rest of the research as to the specifics. You could learn something, though I somehow doubt it.
"we actually write text descriptions of the critique in magazines and newspapers"
Presumably why Finland isn’t exactly known as a hotbed of internationally renowned film criticism.
"you definitely does not need to build your critique youtube video solely from movie clips"
No, which is why critics use them as illustrations as to what they’re talking about. In, strangely enough, the exact same manner in which movie studios compile trailers from movie clips in order to promote the movie via trailers.
I’ll leave it to someone saner than to explain to me why a 3 minute trailer is meant to entice people into paying for a movie, while a 3 minute positive review that utilises clips in a similar way should be illegal due to lost income, because I know up front that your explanation will be worthless to the real world.
Re: Re: Re:46 Re:
It has to do with who actually creates the trailer. Owner of a copyright never needed to obtain licenses to his own work, so making a trailer is not a problem. Positive review is created by some other people, so license arrangements need to be done, if the review uses material from the movie.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
"It has to do with who actually creates the trailer."
So, one person creating a trailer magically results in more money, but someone else using the same footage magically loses money? Yeah, that’s as stupid as I thought your take would be.
Meanwhile, in the real world, sometimes people decide to pay for a movie because they saw a review with footage in it from the film, directly because there’s sound and visuals in the footage used that’s impossible to convey using the written word.
That’s what’s funny about your twisted version of what copyright supposedly is or should be – if the real world committed to your fantasies, a lot of people would lose a lot of money – and, no, that doesn’t mean that people will suddenly pay you instead.
Re: Re: Re:46 Re:
I need to handle both since my hosting service is located in usa.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
This is a thoroughly irrelevant statement to make when it’s clear that you don’t even know how either country’s law is applied. If you did, you’d actually realize that you infringed upon a 3D model from Scott Cawthon, an American.
And why should you benefit from Scott Cawthon’s work? If you used his model so Meshpage can benefit, in your own words, you should give him half of your $48. In fact, you should be sharing the profit you made from whichever copyright owner holds the copyright to the 3D model packs you bought, licenses or no.
Re: Re: Re:45 Re:
Just because you don’t believe it exists doesn’t mean it’s not there. The fact that a family estate can claim money for a story about a mermaid which they did not create themselves is proof.
"It doesn’t even need" is technically true – in the same sense that a sandwich "doesn’t even need" spreads, cured meats or other fillings. You could just have two plain slices of bread. Just don’t expect it to be useful or have someone pay you more money for it.
It’s a good thing, then, that critique videos don’t rely purely on clips of the movie just to make their point. The ones that do use too much of the original source material get nailed for copyright infringement pretty quickly. Where you typically get complaints by users is when videos that don’t commit copyright infringement get DMCA claimed because the critique was negative, and has nothing to do with IP law.
Re: Re: Re:46 Re:
Why would anyone pay for a review where reviewer is idiot enough that they cannot do commercial quality video material? The material needs to be created by the reviewer. Any reviewer that relies on clips from the movies do not really deserve our money.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
You’re right. Nobody would pay for anything that isn’t commercial quality. Exactly why nobody pays you for Meshpage. Thanks for being clear on that.
Any 3D software engineer that relies on model and texture packs therefore do not really deserve money, mansions, or the attention of the Finnish government.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
This url proves you wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UF0zIMI2xA
This was the same video that prompted the teenagers to write review of meshpage in their blog.
Re: Re: Re:47
Wasn’t that review a negative one? Wouldn’t that mean they paid to try your program once, hated it, and likely never used it past the period of time they needed to craft a proper review of your program? And this is what you think constitutes “success”?
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
Since the video is available via the url above, you don’t need to rely on the review by the teenagers when you can see my video directly yourself.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
Yes, everyone has seen that video every time you post it. It doesn’t make it any less of a pathetic joke of a tech demo.
You literally host the review on your website. You’re the only who relies on a negative review to sell your free-to-download work. Why you think that a negative review is helpful for you is… honestly, a confusing prospect, but the upside is it’s a very convincing demonstration of how you’re an absolute madman.
Re: Re: Re:40 Re:
Are you really claiming that techdirt’s web site design is so poor that it takes long time for real end users to sign up for an account and have comments trackable?
Maybe you should recommend some fixes to the web designers who work on techdirt?
Re: Re: Re:41
No, they’re saying you were better off without an account because you wouldn’t have a comment history to track because you wouldn’t have a profile page where we can look through every comment you’ve made under that profile and call out all your bullshit.
You dumbass.
Re: Re: Re:41 Re:
Techdirt HAS users. Your software doesn’t. By your own rules, you have failed to think of a solution to have users and therefore have no grounds to make criticism. Oh snap!
Re: Re: Re:42 Re:
itch.io claims otherwise.
And even if users were missing from my site, critique of techdirt is still appropriate.
Re: Re: Re:43
Someone downloading/buying your shit out of morbid curiosity doesn’t mean they’re an active user of your shit. And even if you did have users, critique of both your bullshit and you yourself is, was, and always will be both appropriate and 100% motherfucking legal.
Re: Re: Re:43 Re:
In which case, since the selling point of Meshpage was that there were zero users potentially infringing copyright law with your software, your new amended claim that there are users therefore violates the selling point of your software, as well as jeopardizing your supposed enforcement of "stricter copyright law" by not managing or banning these users.
I know I’ve said it before, but getting you to shoot your own arguments in the foot is so easy, it’s almost guilt-inducing. It’d be actually guilt-inducing if you weren’t such a shameless apologist for suing grandmothers.
Re: Re: Re:44 Re:
These "users" are not publishing anything. They are creating new works by using the builder tool and connecting graph nodes to build more and more complex copyrighted works in gaming area. I.e. any publish operations are outside the scope of builder tool and thus responsibility of the users themselves.
Re: Re: Re:45
And yet, you can’t show off a single game made by a third party that was made with Meshpage.
If your builder tool can’t prevent people from infringing copyright inside the actual tool—and it can’t, since it didn’t stop you—under your explicitly expressed Copyreich beliefs, you’re equally as responsible for that infringement and deserve to be jailed, fined well beyond your means, and possibly even executed by the government. You’d have to follow your own laws, after all—and you already slipped up once.
Re: Re: Re:46 Re:
I haven’t received any emails from users of meshpage or builder tool. I know there are hundreds of downloads of the tool, but the users don’t tend to bother to contact me after downloading the tool. So I dunno what they do with the tool.
Re: Re: Re:47
By your own admission, there aren’t any users who can send you emails because Meshpage has no active users. And even if it did, why the fuck would they want to email a humanity-hating asshole like you?
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
how would they know i’m an asshole before actually contacting me? They simply have no way to know…
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
Right here.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
This isn’t hard. All anyone would have to do is search for "tp" or "Tero Pulkinnen". Or take a deep dive into your comments. They’ll see that you’re someone who hates humans, despises the fact that they exist, and thinks that brainwashing or forceful subjugation is enough for them to worship the ground you walk on.
They’ll also notice that you’re an active opponent of meme culture, fair use and innocent infringement claims, and you believe that people should have to kill themselves or sell their organs on the black market to appease your copyright settlement fees.
You’re about the only one who doesn’t think you’re an asshole, mate.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
Guess we’re going to see this happen too when russia invaded ukraine. Guess my prediction turned true, although in such way that you didn’t recognize it as a prediction. But all my games are prediction of something.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
Russia is not invading the Ukraine due to copyright law, you copyright fanatic.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
"So I dunno what they do with the tool."
Almost certainly nothing. They probably opened it, took one look at the horrific interface, closed it and deleted it. Nobody’s going to tell you about that. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if most of those downloads are people reading your whining here, and you are being told why nobody’s using it by those same people.
Also, your own incompetence is probably losing you some contact. I believe it’s been years since you threw a tantrum and blocked off you GitHub project from people who dared to try and inject some sanity into Meshpage. Yet, you still have that dead link listed as a main contact option. That’s a red flag to anyone trying to contact you, and the fact that you have your phone number listed, but not a Slack, Discord, social media or other modern communication method is another red flag.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
github links to private repos are working like that. Its like a paywall… if you pay enough money, you get access to the repo.
are you now claiming that demanding money for repo access is a red flag?
Re: Re: Re:47
Yes. Yes, it is.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
You’ve been spending years here complaining about how nobody gives you the respect you deserve for your code, but when someone asks for proof you demand money up front before anyone can evaluate your work.
Unless you’re running an OnlyFans account, a lack of transparency is, generally, regarded as a red flag. It sounds like an NFT Discord server who has no idea what the hell they’re going to do with their ugly ape pictures before taking everyone’s money and running off with it in a scammy rug pull.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
I’m saying that if you expect people to contact you to tell you that your software’s so shit that they uninstalled it the moment your ugly UI appeared, and the only 21st century contact method you offer is blocked to the public, then nobody’s going to bother.
Also, if you’re demanding money to access your GitHub page, then you also fail in this regard since that demand is not mentioned next to the 404 link. All you provide is a dead link with an invitation to randomly call an idiot on the other side of the world. No thanks.
Such a demand would be a red flag either way, especially since all your competitors have their code available, but the fact that you failed to make the demand is the funny part.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
google.poly — discontinued
sketchfab — actual code under paywall
cgsociety.org — software nowhere to be found
poly.pizza — software not available
That’s all the competitors to meshpage… which one you think has their code available?
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
You’re the one who regularly whines that Blender is a competitor who unfairly gets all the business, and now that it comes time to address why you refuse to supply what they do, you pretend they don’t exist?
Very strange, but such delusional dishonestly is your raison d’être.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
You’re the one who thinks blender is meshpage competitor. That simply isn’t true. Blender simply cannot put the 3d models to a web page, so it’s not a competitor.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
For someone that’s not a competitor, you sure put in a lot of effort boasting that they should be removed from the Internet for "claiming copyright" on the works of users… which is in itself an incorrect claim at best, and an outright malicious lie at worst.
If Blender is such a non-threat, why do you care so much that other people are using it?
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
You ask me, I think we should be getting him to bitch about Sketchfab since he listed it as an active competitor. Six million users on what is free software, and all Tero has to show for his is $46 from Fiverr, $2 from itch.io hosting, and a game development contract he had to sign an NDA for after an alleged seven years of negotiations. He’s going to tie his breathing apparatus in a knot with all these delusions.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
I think it’s funny how you managed to go from "Meshpage is the best because I have no users, and therefore nobody commits copyright infringement with it unlike that filthy disgusting Blender" to "well actually I totally have users and I should get more money".
Man, you can’t even keep your narrative consistent within the same article thread.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
you didn’t consider the possibility that both of them are true at the same time. When you’re skipping the wall of text and not memorizing the text like it was bible’s 2nd coming, you’ll get shallow view of the situation and it has problems like you found. It’s your poor reading ability that causes the problem. Maybe if you learned to deal with brainwashiing properly by memorizing the whole text and all the details in it, you’d be much better off and the story would be significantly more consistent.
Re: Re: Re:47
Either your software has users or it doesn’t; you don’t get to put your software in a box with Schrödinger’s Cat. So does it have users or not?
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
It depends on how you calculate the user counts. Based on views and downloads, it has users. Based on money, it doesn’t have users. Both are true at the same time. There’s no schrödinger’s cat needed in this situation. It just depends on how you do the measurements.
Re: Re: Re:47
No, it doesn’t. Are people using your software or not? It’s a binary choice, not a spectrum of answers. Which one is it, you Nazi fuck?
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
only a sith believes in absolutes. I do what I must….
Re: Re: Re:47
You’re not God, you’re not a Jedi, and you’re not even (in)famous enough for a stub of a Wikipedia page. Are people using your software or not?
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
This isn’t true. My work is well recognized in the phone area. Wikipedia even has a page which claims our organisation was run by soviet-style practices.
Re: Re: Re:47
Cite a source or fuck off—and no, I’m not going to do your homework for you.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
nope. I expect you’ll be idiot enough to change the page…
Re: Re: Re:47
Then you have no source. You therefore forfeit whatever credibility you thought you had on this matter.
You made a claim. You have to back it up. If you can’t, you’re full of shit.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
I’m more reliable source for the information, given that I worked with the project. Wikipedia is all 2nd hand information which has tidbits like "their organisation was soviet like arrangement"… which is completely bullshit informatiion….
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
"I’m more reliable source for the information"
You’re not even a reliable source for reality. We can’t trust you to correctly identify anything that you’ve been asked about, so we will assume you are just as unreliable on the organisation that you claim to have worked for, and refuse to allow anyone else to verify.
Credibility is earned, and Wikipedia has way more than you have, unless you wish to supply evidence as to why whoever wrote the entry you’re butthurt by (and would presumably be backed with a citation) is wrong.
Even then, your grasp on general reality is bad enough for anything you say to be taken suspiciously. Welcome to the grave you dug for yourself.
Re: Re: Re:47
You won’t name the company. You won’t name the project. You won’t provide a link to the Wikipedia page that you say will back up all of your claims. That doesn’t sound like a reliable—or credible—source of information to me.
Put up or shut up, fuck-up.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
Nobody thinks you’re reliable, Tero, especially not after you make claims such as you have a human-to-robot automatic conversion plan to use on people on Techdirt who you disagree with.
It’s a funny, regular occurrence with copyright fanatics and trolls like you. All this whining about how not following stricter copyright law hurts your bottom line and your existing revenue streams, but not a single citation on what those streams actually are.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
claims don’t matter. Getting stuff done matters. I’ve proven (with my website) that I can get technologies done. All the other people in techdirt has nothing like that to show off…
Re: Re: Re:47
We don’t need to make fifth-rate Blender ripoffs when Blender already exists.
Cite your claims or fuck off, Nazi.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
So, you’re just lazy. Instead of creating a solution of your own, you rely on materials created by other people. This isn’t much better than copyright infringement, given that you never planned to pass any money to the authors.
In fact, this free software crap is creating market where legimate content authors have difficulties asking for money when free (as beer) solutions are available.
While free software foundation is adverticing their "free as freedom" solutions, what they’re actually selling is free beer. This is always a mistake.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
And how much money have you paid for the Internet browser that you’re using? How much have you paid for the C++ libraries you used to develop Meshpage? How many licenses have you paid for the computer parts you used to develop Meshpage? (In your stricter copyright laws, a single payment would not be enough – because you benefited from the derived works created on that computer, by stricter copyright laws, the people who made the computer are entitled to your profits.)
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
The fact that you’ve cobbled together a sad 3D engine with a pitiful number of users – which is in itself suspect – is irrelevant to the claim that you have a "human to robot conversion tool". What "stuff" have you done to even get that fanciful exaggeration off the ground?
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
I think it’s more suspect what you’re doing — i.e. when you’re lazy bastard who gets nothing done, it’s significantly more suspect.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
I work a desk job and take home several thousand dollars a month like my colleagues. You take back an alleged $48 over eight years while whining that people don’t spend time and money to suck your cock. There’s a lazy bastard and it’s not me, genius.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
So you’re a fraud who ripoffs his employer too?
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
Unlike you, there are those of us who don’t go around boasting that we harvest organs to pay for mansions, or claim to have human-to-robot conversion plans and machines that don’t exist.
It turns out that when you don’t make baseless claims and contribute to an organization, you get paid for it. Try not to faint from the surprise, Tero. Don’t confuse the rest of us for yourself who gets angry at companies for "holding onto the copyright", also known as your end goal for the RIAA.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
"It turns out that when you don’t make baseless claims and contribute to an organization, you get paid for it"
It also turns out that when you decide not to do that and instead go out on your own to create something of your own, and you forfeit that in return for greater autonomy and the possibility of greater returns later on down the road, then you also shoulder the risks. Such as, when you provide a product that doesn’t sell, be that due to poor marketing or simply creating an inferior product, you lost the gamble you took and the correct course of action is to either cut your losses and work on something new or improve the product to a successful saleable state. Not to still be whining nearly decade later about how everyone else still owes you money because you put in time to make something that failed.
Therefore, the usual problem with our friend here. He failed, but he still wants to be paid as if he succeeded, even though the time from conception to millions of paying users for so many products took less time (and probably less writing) than he’s spent here complaining that the market doesn’t reward failure.
Re: Re: Re:47
It’s telling that you think someone holding down a job and making a decent sum of money as a result must be a fraud instead of, you know, someone who actually works for a living.
Still haven’t told us who you worked for and what marvelous inventions you made while working for them, by the by. Cite the claim, bitch.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
he obvously is lazy bastard so any money he receives has no equivalent work product. When this happens, we call it fraud.
Re: Re: Re:47
Cite the claim, bitch.
And also provide a citation for your claim of having worked for a company and made numerous cell phones/inventions/whatever.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
[citation needed]
This doesn’t follow from the aforementioned premise.
False. Fraud requires some level of deceit or misinformation. Even taking the previous statement as sound (which it isn’t), that still isn’t necessarily fraud.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
This lazy label he got when he decided that he doesn’t need to create anything of his own, simply because blender already exists. Bastard label is just obvious to everyone who isn’t blind.
This conclusion comes from the fact that when he does not create anything of his own, his work effort that he uses to advance the society is at lower level than any ordinary person who have decided to help government keep their society up and running.
This deceit and misinformation you’ll get when he subscribes to his salaru and demands compensation level that isn’t grounded by the work amount that he’s doing. I.e. the key issue is that other people are working harder and still he thinks he’s entitled to higher salary simply for his beautyful face.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
They never said that. I have no idea where you got that idea from. You simply decided that on your own.
I’d also argue that that doesn’t prove laziness even if true. One can be a hard-worker without creating something completely unique and original of their own on their own.
Then I guess I’m blind. That’s also an ad hominem, BTW, and not actually relevant.
An assertion made without evidence, especially one based upon an unsupported premise, can be dismissed without evidence. And even if true, that still wouldn’t support your conclusion. It’s a non sequitur.
Again, that doesn’t follow. You don’t know what knowledge their employer has. Maybe their employer knows the amount of work their doing and feels that they’re still worth their salary.
[citation needed] Again.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
Not everyone who doesn’t work in 3D modeling or programming is inherently lazy. Some people work in finance, the arts, engineering, environmental sustainability, retail, logistics – there’s an endless array of different industries and job roles out there.
Whether or not you think these roles are necessary for society to function is largely your opinion, but personally I think it’s funny that the fact that other jobs exist and people get paid more than $6 a year for them pisses you off this much, you have to assume everyone else is lazier than you. As in, lazier than the guy demanding that Finland make worshipping Tero Pulkinnen the state religion.
Deciding to help the government does not mean anything if what you think is "helping" isn’t actually helping. And let’s be frank, what you do is begging the government to use your software as a Blender alternative, then getting angry at the government for not spending money to make you a millionaire. That is not helping society run. Never mind the fact that you yourself acknowledged that Meshpage has all of several hundred users at best, who to your knowledge have yet to do anything with it.
For what it’s worth, what I’m paid is considered roughly market rate for the roles that I do. And a considerable part of that job scope includes creative thinking and design. Whether you think that’s fair is entirely between the company that hired me and myself.
The difference between you and me is you make spurious claims and entitlements about murder, human-to-robot conversion, and imaginary mansions based on some work you might have done for mobile phone technology a couple decades ago. Nokia, I’m guessing, considering that it is in Finland, although it’s excessively clear at this point you don’t believe in explaining yourself beyond vaguely insulting everyone else. You then think that heritage is somehow reason enough to think that your vanity project is therefore some heavenly mandate for everyone to throw you all their life savings and indenture themselves to perpetual servitude for you.
Unfortunately for you, not only does the world not work that way, you also think that the best way to get around this is to openly treat everyone else – even your users and customers – as scum of the earth, and regularly toss death threats at them. I think it’s funny as fuck that a wasted Nokia has-been is so triggered that other working people get paid more than you can rip off the Finnish welfare system.
Do yourself a favor, and convert yourself to a robot if you hate humans so much.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
This is still better than what you’ve managed to do.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
Is that what you tell yourself so you don’t cry yourself to sleep every night? That other people working in other jobs, other industries, get paid an actual functioning wage for their work? That other people willingly humble themselves, instead of acting like bullies the way you do, and society treats them accordingly?
You could have leveraged your ability to code. Instead what you have on Techdirt is nothing more than a collection of threats of violence, murder, organ harvesting and extortion, because you feel that your government should reward you for the equivalent of urinating on their face. And every post you make here informs other people to stay far, far away from whatever work you do.
You don’t contribute to society, Tero. You actively hate society. You don’t benefit society. You think society’s sole reason for existing is to fluff up your ego, riches, and flights of fantasy. This sad attempt to make yourself feel better by insisting that everyone else is lazy is merely another failure at self-justification. I suppose the one upside to your existence is that you demonstrate that copyright owners and holders like yourself are not to be trusted. You’re on the scale of mass murderers and child molesters who only look at other people to be exploited.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
Why is it that you went after that statement and nothing else either of us said? That wasn’t even a major point they were making?
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
the rest of the wall of text was irrelevant because meshpage has already been properly implemented. There isn’t any coding to do any longer when the technology exists and have been tweaked to bugfree status. This kinda makes all your recommendations on how to implement the code better irrelevant…
Re: Re: Re:47
Except, you know, the fact that your stricter copyright enforcement mechanisms didn’t stop you from infringing on Scott Cawthon’s copyright. Also your claim that you have the ability to alter the code and capabilities based on user feedback, which you’ve boasted you don’t have any of. Or the ability to save or export, which you’ve also boasted your full intent to shut off the moment the RIAA thinks that a rectangle might be copyright infringement.
This idea that what you have is “properly implemented” is a bold but ultimately meaningless bluff, especially since when all’s said and done, you haven’t got any kids using it. As in, the one thing you claimed Meshpage was designed for.
That’s if you ignore the memory leakage and how much it taxes existing machines to run, because that’s somehow okay? Except unfortunately for you, it’s not. As a programmer you really should know that “bug free status” is a pipe dream. The best you’ve managed to do is shut off functions in the name of “copyright enforcement”. Realistically what you’ve done is made a hole in the ground and spent the last eight years demanding people for money based on the fact that it exists.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
This isn’t a surprise – the most Tero Pulkinnen can do when challenged is to do one of the following: make a single or series of ridiculous claims about how his plan works or how he thinks copyright law (or indeed, any kind of law works); claim "Nope, I don’t believe you" and run away; resort to accusations of piracy and other reprehensible traits.
Seriously, the guy’s business plan for Meshpage is to forcibly convert humans into compliant, unquestioning robots by means of threats and brainwashing. Expecting him to give a hinged response is like asking John Smith to not grope women by the pussy.
Re: Re: Re:47 Re:
Ignoring your factual errors doesn’t make you more credible, or your lies. What I am, though, is having fun forcing out the answers out of you so we can see how threadbare your pathetic façade is. So contrary to what you want to claim, I am in fact better off.
Re: Re: Re:30 Re:
You are suffering from delusions if you think that speculative development of a piece of software entitles you to an income. Other people who have a failed project, shrug and move on.
Re: Re: Re:31 Re:
So you’re saying that software developers are not entitled compensation for their work? What is the reason to discard whole occupations from compensation? The universities are claiming that software development is real work, and they actually take your money based on the claims that their teachings on software development are helping people get proper work from the employment market.
Re: Re: Re:32
They’re saying that you openly speculating on what your software can do—even and especially if it will never be able to do what you want it to do—doesn’t entitle you to an income. Claiming that Meshpage will stop all copyright infringement doesn’t entitle you to get paid any amount of money by any government, any of the oligarchs who really run the world, or anyone else in the world. The world doesn’t owe you shit; it was here first.
Re: Re: Re:32 Re:
When software developers get paid for their work, it’s because their work was contracted with an employer and they get formally paid for their skills and services. The rules obviously change when you’re doing it as a passion project or hobby that nobody paid money up front for development.
Of course, you could have received compensation for Meshpage by charging people money to use it, but you personally chose to release it for free. Albeit in a format that pays very little attention to user experience and assumes that children can figure it out for themselves because, in your own words, adults and experts are too dumb to use your software. There’s also the claim you made a year back that you had signed a non-disclosure agreement with a publisher to use Meshpage for game development… so clearly, you are being compensated. You simply aren’t being compensated to the magnitude that you want.
And here’s the thing – there’s a difference between getting cheated out of being paid for the work you did, and being angry that you’re not rich enough. Any casual observer, looking at your work, the comments that you’ve made – and most importantly, the demands that you’ve placed – will not see you as a struggling starving content creator. They see a madman from Finland trying to make ridiculous demands of the government to use his software and enforce its usage like law, while believing that a slavish dedication to the RIAA by claiming that subway maps are what pays for metro services (and not the actual trains themselves) will somehow compensate.
Personally, I know acquaintances who studied to be programmers and coders in university. Some of them continue to hold relevant jobs in industries such as game development. What none of them do is try to market their own 3dsmax ripoff as the next best thing since sliced bread, get angry at the government for not worshipping them, or claim that anyone who disagrees is an incel living in their parent’s basement.
The fact that you aren’t as rich as you would prefer is not the responsibility of anyone else. Your entire strategy is focused on praying that everyone else gets raped for a spurious copyright infringement claim and get nuked from the market. This is not the way the world works no matter how much you desperately desire otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:33 Re:
Yes, the laziness is spreading all over the world. You’ve now proven that usa is not immune to this laziness problem. If software developers cannot even create their own software, at some point they will lose respect of their peers when they only managed to implement someone else’s projects, and did nothing on their own. If software developers do not keep starting new projects when they’re bored then they should find some other way to create their own copyrghted works.
Re: Re: Re:34
I’m sorry that you hate open source software and the open source ethos of open collaboration in development, but that’s your problem. Only you can solve it.
So you’re saying a software developer has to develop an entirely new application dedicated to making one single copyrighted work every time said developer wants to make a new copyrighted work?
Re: Re: Re:34 Re:
Your usual willful ignoring of the solutions provided aside…
Refusing to demand money for a counterfeit and inferior product is not laziness. I get that you have a vested interest in painting your competition as morally reprehensible, but this only works if your claim is legitimate.
Speaking from experience, are we?
Realistically, nobody expects everyone else to start their own business or project. It’s simply not feasible. If everyone exclusively creates their own software or business and nobody contributes to anything that isn’t tied to their own project, nothing would get done. Why would it? In your own words, working on something else that someone else started is somehow not worthy of respect, and their skills somehow don’t matter.
Starting your own project and working for someone else is not the be all and end all of what makes someone worthy. It’s simply not possible for everyone to be entrepreneurs.
Re: Re: Re:35 Re:
so, if these entreoewneurs are not allowed to demand money for the work they do, where are they supposed to get the money for food?
Re: Re: Re:36
It’s called “a job”, dipshit.
Re: Re: Re:37 Re:
That would require moving the valuable copyright to the company. Why do you think that only the companies who pay salaries should be allowed to get benefit from copyright?
Re: Re: Re:38
I don’t. That’s your belief.
Re: Re: Re:38 Re:
Yes, and the company becomes a middleman. You know… the same exact thing that you say the RIAA does, and should get money for, and should be able to sue old grandmothers for. You were the one who claimed that it was a good thing that artists gave their copyrights to a lawyer so the lawyer sues on their behalf and makes the money on their behalf.
So now it’s suddenly not okay, because your work got involved? That sounds like something a pirate would say, Tero. Don’t you want the RIAA to see what good work you’re doing? Why would you be so piratey to hold onto your own copyright like that?
You’re the one who’s been consistently claiming that the RIAA should benefit from the works that artists have created so they can sue people for their salary. You’re the one who’s been championing this reality of how copyright works. Of course, the rest of us don’t think this way, but it is funny how you’re now angry about it only because it affects your bottom line.
Re: Re: Re:36 Re:
They are allowed to demand money. What you don’t seem to get is that nobody is obliged by law or morals to freely give money to anyone who begs for it.
If an "entrepreneur" takes a hammer, knocks down the walls of your house (or mansion) and demands that you pay him for his work, would you give him the money?
They work. Probably for someone else. You know… like the rest of us have been doing. The fact that you refuse to do this because you’d rather mock us for not having our own business is your problem, not ours.
Re: Re: Re:37 Re:
there is important rule in meshpage’s (and builder’s) development. The activity must not do damage to other people’s property (including not violating copyright).
You’re hinting that the activity is causing damage to some properly. I challenge you to explain carefully what property is being damaged….
This would be a problem if my business was drawing graffitti to other people’s property. But happily it can always be avoided by buying some property of your own, and then practicing your art skills on your own property, so if the value drops because of the nice art attached, then you yourself get the consiquences and it’s not "someone else’s" property that gets damaged.
Re: Re: Re:38
Meshpage couldn’t even stop you from doing it. I expect you to therefore report your crimes to the RIAA immediately so it can ruin you financially and eventually execute you in public, as per your Copyreich beliefs.
Re: Re: Re:39 Re:
That’s your evilness speaking. Maybe you need some more positive attitude. Your current attitude would not be suitable for any reasonable business. The values required are just significantly less evil.
Re: Re: Re:40
You’ve literally said that people should be fined billions of dollars for violating even one copyright; when pressed on how such a fine would destroy the average person, you seemed damn near giddy at the prospect. When it was suggested that executing copyright infringers could be a potential punishment, you either didn’t push back on the idea or implicitly agreed with the notion. That isn’t my “evilness” speaking—it’s me turning your own Copyreich beliefs back on you.
You keep thinking the laws that already apply or would apply to everyone else don’t and wouldn’t apply to you. Your hubris won’t save you from the same punishments you seek to impose on others.
Re: Re: Re:41 Re:
maybe these people shouldn’t do copyright infringement in the first place? You know it’s against the law to do copyright infringement, still you think that somehow everyone must be doing infringement and no product development could ever be attempted without violating someone’s copyright. The legal eagles disagree. Copyright infringement is not forced by laws of physics. People can just opt to not do it at all. You just need attitude that other people’s property is valuable and destroying it is not desirable property for any product that you develop.
Re: Re: Re:42
Thank you for proving my point that you’re in favor of fining people—including yourself—billions of dollars they don’t have if they infringe on any copyright anywhere in the world in any way. You make it so easy to paint you as a fucking Nazi; hell, you don’t even object to being compared to those mass-murdering anti-Semites.
They are. The average person infringes on copyright at least thrice daily. Ever saved a copyrighted image off the Internet without permission from the copyright owner? That’s technically infringement, bitch. Hope you got a billion or two lying around.
Then why didn’t you opt to do it when you infringed on Scott Cawthon’s copyrights?
You didn’t destroy any of Scott Cawthon’s property, real or imagined, when you ripped off his work. Unless you want to argue that you’re somehow exempt from the same copyright laws that govern everyone else and the same fines/punishments (up to and including execution!) that you’d seek to impose on everyone else—in which case I’d ask you if truly believe you’re God.
Re: Re: Re:43 Re:
this is only true for career criminals. Not true for average persons. Basically if you’re doing copyright infringement this often, you deserve to be burned in courts when copyright owners call the bluff.
I partly blame the lack of enforcement actions from copyright owners for this undesirable outcome that makes some people think that average persons are some kind of career criminals. When copyright is not properly enforced, "average" people will lose sight of what activity is actually allowed, and what is illegal things to do. But these pirates will see their day in court, once the copyright owners run with the ball.
Re: Re: Re:44
No, it isn’t. Copyright infringement doesn’t need to be willful to occur; you yourself proved that. And given how many people share images they don’t have the rights to on a daily basis, whether they intend to infringe copyright is irrelevant to the fact that they infringe.
Yes, yes, you think people should be outright executed for sharing a single image they don’t own the rights to with a friend, we get it.
Re: Re: Re:45 Re:
It’s enough that the copyright violators learn to live 8 years with $48 money. It’s a challenge for them, and many will die while trying it.
Re: Re: Re:46
You don’t object to the summary execution of copyright infringers by the federal government, though.
Re: Re: Re:44 Re:
You have the RIAA, MPAA and similar organizations claiming that everything from "changing the channel while an advertisement is played" to "hearing free-to-air music coming from a radio" is copyright infringement. The same goes for people who share memes or Facebook videos with their friends.
The truth is that if we based copyright infringement on the definitions historically used by the RIAA and MPAA, the average person does, in fact, infringe on copyright very often.
Do they, though? Copyright cases rarely make it past the settlement phase. What usually happens is copyright holders get a lawyer to work as a bill collector and harass a grandma or war veteran into paying several thousand dollars. At no point is the evidence collected by the rightsholder ever actually verified by a technical expert. The two copyright cases that made it to court pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of people who were bullied into paying up. This would not be a problem if not for the fact that copyright holders and lawyers are notoriously inaccurate when it comes to identifying actual infringers.
This is entirely your fault. If you’re that desperate to see money come from copyright lawsuits, you’re more than welcome to try. The reason why copyright holders are less willing to do it these days is because judges have realized that their evidence is often not worth the paper it’s hastily written on.
Honestly when chumps like you insist that copyright law allows people to ban negative critiques of movies and games, or demand organ donation from old people who have no idea your work even exists, it’s very clear that you have no understanding of "properly enforced" copyright law.
Hell, you don’t even acknowledge the exceptions to copyright law. All it took was briefly mentioning "fair use" for you to go into an angry, spittle-flying rant about how you believe fair use shouldn’t exist. You don’t even understand the law you claim to worship.
Yeah, about that… the last time that happened, it got the copyright owners arrested.
Re: Re: Re:43 Re:
Also this argument was rejected by courts when some guy called Joel Tannenbaum claimed that piracy (of music) was some kind of speeding in information superhighway and that everyone and their dog is doing it daily. And while his father has warned repeatedly that the copyright infringement is illegal, he still continued his illegal practices and then courts decided to stop it with huge damage award and preventing him continue his practices. See https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=1:03-cv-11661-NG&s=&d=40802
Re: Re: Re:44 Re:
Tenenbaum’s case is an example where the "fair use" argument did not apply, and the legal team on his side pursued novel legal theories that did not endear them to the judge. Realistically, though, there is very little reason to believe that he is individually responsible for millions of dollars in damages to the music industry. The same goes for the "huge damage award" – he’s not paying that back in his lifetime. At which point you have to ask, was the money spent in trying to make an example out of him worth it, if the artists and copyright holders lost money as a result?
Re: Re: Re:45 Re:
So this proves my position that users of copyrighted works cannot rely on fair use to save their ass from copyright infringement lawsuit.
Re: Re: Re:46 Re:
Yes, you can and should be found liable for infringing on Scott Cawthon’s work. The failure to enforce it on you before you deleted the work is a sign that you need to have stricter copyright laws enforced on you, just like you said you wanted.
Not punishing you for your infringement, no matter how innocent, is a betrayal of the copyright values which you demanded to have.
Re: Re: Re:47 On copytight...
I don’t think you understand the real failure. The content was not actually deleted. I only removed it from the front page. The urls to the content still works. But given that noone has those urls available, they cannot access the content.
But this deletion vs hiding the content from front page isn’t kinda important. RIAA’s making available isn’t the deciding factor, instead we subscribe to the “counting of number of users to the content”… When there’s no users when urls are not widely available to the public, is the deciding factor, and limits significantly the damage caused by any possible infringement.
The original claim about Scott Cawthon owning the content is already dubious enough given that we properly licensed the content from sketchfab, so we didn’t really need to do any more powerful actions than hiding from front page.
Re: Re: Re:42 Re:
This is what you personally claimed about Blender. You’re the one who claimed that all users infringe on copyright unless they’re Meshpage users. You’re the one who claimed that everyone else isn’t a follower of stricter copyright laws, therefore we’re all criminals.
That’s what the RIAA wants – and by extension and your own admission, what you want.
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
The "wounded animal gambit" of "Since I’m about to die, I’d might as well cause as much damage as possible" becomes less relevant in this situation, given that studies have shown that pirates are, in fact, far larger spenders on content, and the damage dealt to content owners has yet to be definitively proven.
No, the reason nobody accepts having to pay $2 billion in damages is because it’s because it’s an unreasonable number for a single person to pay in a lifetime. The fact that Oracle asked for it doesn’t suddenly make it okay. The judge in that case thought it was so not okay, Oracle lost that case. You can keep repeating it and it will not suddenly make people more sympathetic to giving you money you do not deserve.
Re: get the license instead
Did Eriksen get a bloody license from Hans Christian Andersen, and possibly whatever may have specifically inspired him, or all the previous cultures that had concepts of mermaids?
Thought so.
I think Hans Christian Andersen’s heirs should be able to sue Erikson’s heirs for a cut, then Edvard Munch’s heirs could start screaming about how he’s the ‘Edvard’ that’s a famous artist and Erikson’s heirs owe them everything they’ve earned off their ancestor’s name.
Re: Re:
indeed. If the statue was inspired by the book, then all copyrights proceeds should go to the book, if one follows the logic of the heirs.
The principle is actually very well illustrated in a paper by Malcom Gladwell in the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/11/22/something-borrowed
Gladwell found some great examples of artists building on other artists work, with some surprising twists.
On a separate note, one wonders why pretty much all the great works of art have been created before modern copyright and rightsholders entered the stage …
Re: Re: Re:
Because copyright enables micropayments for microart, so there is no point in commissioning something worth a lot. Also it pays better to spread your creative skills thin. Pulp fiction pays a steady income, one-hit wonders don’t.
I have a fix that could just work
"…all that suggests is that there needs to be an active movement in Denmark to amend the law"
That or, you know, get rid of the statue and put something else on the rock. See how much the heirs like copyright when there is no money because there is nothing there to copy.
Re: I have a fix that could just work
Maybe pay someone to sculpt a bronze sheet to throw over it.
Come to Denmark, take vacation photos, be sued for millions!
A piece of art, built upon anothers art, and a bunch of grifters getting paid… ahhh copyright.
"The statue was commissioned in 1909 by Carl Jacobsen,"
Something something work for hire?
"Aside from the statue on display, which is a replica of the original,"
Wait so they are getting paid over a knock off of the original art?!
"In 2016, a similar statue was installed at the harbor in Asaa, Denmark, where it is also mounted on the top of a rock. The heirs of the sculptor are suing, claiming that the Asaa statue bears too close a resemblance to the famous one, and they are demanding damages and the destruction of the Asaa statue."
Resembles. Not a copy but kinda sorts looks like so we have the rights to it?! They lines are blurred.
"The statue is under copyright until 2029, seventy years after the 1959 death of the creator."
Of course if copyright started at creation it would have been free in 1979.
So a family is ranking in bank on a knockoff of the original artwork.
Why do I suspect it’s the lawyers that are driving this and that will see most of the money…
Americans forget other country’s have no fair use law, or exceptions for parody , commentary, or guaranteed free speech, one of the reasons the Web grew so fast is American websites were protected by free speech laws even before section 230 came into force
there’s a reasons few big startups come from Germany or the EU even laws differ from different EU country’s thank god the UK is no longer in the EU . They are bringing in new laws that mandate content must be taken down even if its Legal if it could be shown to upset children
Nowhere near the same extreme . But in Portland Oregon there is thirty four foot tall bronze statue paid for by the city of Portland sitting on the side of the cities building housing the cities offices… That is protected so fiercely protected by copyright that is rarely photographed it isn’t used for anything depicting Portland. From tourist guides to TV shows.
Daft. Absolutely bonkers
I’ve grown up seeing pictures of that statue every now and then. I’ve also seen other pictures of unclothed mermaids from other parts of the world, and the idea that taking a photo of a public monument – which is what the Little Mermaid Statue in Copenhagen is, for all that it’s apparently still private property – violates copyright law is a sandwich short of a picnic. I would be generous, and recommend that the judges who handed down such a ridiculous judgement, attend some suitable mental health course until they are certified healed.
The closest analogy I can think of would be doing a review of a book for whatever reason. (And growing up you tend to have to do a lot of those in school.) And of course, doing a book review violates copyright, because you have to read the book, which of course defeats the purpose of copyright law, which is that nobody is allowed to duplicate the text, even within the privacy of their own heads for the purpose of following the text … /sarcasm
So where is the legal analysis of the ruling?
So there’s lots of smoke and the smell of something burning all through these comments, along with tp’s random silliness. But no where is there any analysis of the ruling the court made, which is really what needs to happen here before anyone can comment intelligently on the reasons why the ruling came out like this.
I wish I read any other languages so I could help, but I don’t so I can’t.
How do you know if the comment section was shat on?
There’s tp everywhere…
Man, I’m not sure these replies are parsing under the new system. Had a few in other threads eaten already.
First off, funny that you had to create a new account.
The fact that you’re admitting to the fact that you haven’t removed the content from your website is pretty damning, per normal copyright law. A lot of copyright plaintiffs frequently demand harsher penalties on sites like WordPress and Cloudflare precisely because, in their own words, content isn’t “removed”, just “hidden”. The fact that you have only “hidden” access to Scott Cawthon’s work means that by RIAA terms, you can and should still be held liable.
The RIAA has sued people for making backups of music CDs they legally purchased. The “legal purchase” defense flat out does not exist. Certainly not in the way that the RIAA thinks copyright law should function.
Re:
This isn’t true. Removing content where links already exists is actually breaking web completely. Noone wants web sites to be full of links that do not work. So the operation that removes content from web should be less frequent than the hiding operation. The information provided about scott cawthon simply isn’t powerful enough to overcome the remove barrier. It would actually require DCMA notice or at least letter from the copyright owner before breaking the web would be suitable operation to do. Some random dudes from internet who troll about copyright are not having sufficient bits to cause content removal. But when there are hints of problems with copyrights, some action needs to be taken, and hiding the content is already powerful enough.
Re: Re:
Scott Cawthon is the creator of the Five Nights at Freddy’s franchise and, for most of the existence of said franchise, the creator/primary designer of every character in that franchise. Those are well-known facts that anyone can look up and verify.
The character model you showed off on your site was a model of Springtrap. That character was the villain of the third game in the franchise. Unless someone can prove otherwise, Scott Cawthon created and designed Springtrap by himself.
The game franchise in general and the Springtrap character in particular are both protected by copyright. The odds of you having legally obtained that character model from Scott Cawthon are so small that they may as well not exist. You infringed upon a copyright held by someone else; whether you intended to do so is irrelevant, especially since you believe both Fair Use/Dealing and the public domain should be abolished from copyright law.
The content is still on your server, even if it’s hidden. You’re admitting to that fact on a public-facing website where anyone—even, say, Scott Cawthon himself—could see that admission and consider it evidence of an intent to continue infringing copyright.
Re: Re: Re:
This does not matter one bit. You have to consider what causes damages to the copyright owner. Just “storing the data in server” is not sufficient enough to cause damages to copyright owner. Some distribution of the content must happen for damages to be real. And hiding the material from front page limits the amount of content distributed around the world and thus limits the possible damages copyright owners are able to claim from that content item.
This is already enough for the activity to be legal. We have made explicit steps to limit any copyright owner’s damage and this saves our copyright story. I.e. the activity is not illegal and you cannot claim copyright infringement (since it requires all the steps: ownership of copyright, copying of the copyrightable elements of the material and plausible damages story) If any of the required elements is missing the activity is legal.
Re: Re: Re:2 An unlawful act is unlawful even if you hide the evidence.
I don’t. A court does, though. By your own admission, the evidence of your infringement is still on your server—and that admission that would likely be a net negative for you in a lawsuit.
You did distribute it, though. Remember? You had it on your page for some time before someone told you that you had infringed upon copyrights held by Scott Cawthon. The fact that you hid the evidence of your unlawful act from public view—something you admit to doing—only makes you look guilty as fuck.
Except it isn’t. You displayed copyrighted material without explicit permission from the copyright owner—a fact you have yet to dispute. You were told that you were violating copyright—a fact you can’t dispute. You hid the evidence of your infringement without actually deleting it—a fact to which you admit.
Even if you haven’t created any concrete damages against Scott Cawthon, that you used his copyrighted material without his explicit permission is still copyright infringement. And unless you’re aching to decry literally everything you believe in, copyright infringement—even without any monetary damages attached—is still an unlawful act.
You infringed upon copyrights held by Scott Cawthon; no amount of backpedaling, circular reasoning, or bullshit legal theories can change that fact.
Re: Re: Re:3
Except this is about copyright. If public cannot see the material, they cannot do copyright infrngement either. This cures any possible copyright infringment. So your copyright theory is missing important element, i.e. that the seeded copyrighted work were further distributed.
Re: Re: Re:4
You displayed an unauthorized version of the Springtrap character model—a fact to which you’ve admitted. That still makes you an infringer of copyrights held by Scott Cawthon.
Re: Re: Re:5
Well, when surprices happen in copyright area, like some copyrighted item turns out to have different author than what you expected, the players need to be in damage minimisation mode. This damage minimisation when properly executed, will try to limit the scope of the infringement. It cannot any more in damage minimisation mode to remove infringement completely, but it can limit the scope and damages that copyright owners are allowed to obtain.
Re: Re: Re:5
When problems happen in copyright system, you need to turn to damage minimisation mode. If the author of some content item wasn’t what you expected, damage minimisation mode saves the day. While fixing the initial infringement isn’t possible because “it already happened”, you can always limit future damages.
Re: Re: Re:6
Okay but you still infringed on the copyright tho’.
Re: Re: Re:7
I prefer to state it this way: “the technology associated with meshpage still has risks that have not realized yet”..
Re: Re: Re:8
Say it in a funny accent if you want; you still infringed on someone else’s copyright.
Re: Re: Re:9
It’s still significantly better than what the alternative would be. At the beginning of meshpage project, there was two alternative paths to follow: 1) either do video decoders, 2) or do meshpage.
We chose the 2nd alternative, and it’s working significantly better than the video decoders where all the decoder vendors/IPTV companies are being sued by the entertainment industry for illegal streaming of copyright owners content.
While our system still have problems, it’s still significantly better than the alternative.
Re: Re: Re:10
[citation needed]
And even if that’s true, that still won’t change the fact that you infringed on Scott Cawthon’s copyright.
Re: Re: Re:11
https://torrentfreak.com/pirates-who-lost-90m-iptv-lawsuit-sued-again-for-launching-more-services-220316/
https://torrentfreak.com/court-overturns-pirate-iptv-prison-sentences-due-to-unenforceable-copyrights-220315/
https://torrentfreak.com/major-streaming-piracy-sites-have-their-domain-names-suspended-220314/
There’s more news like this if you browse the same site.
Re: Re: Re:11
It proves that we have actively taken steps to avoid large scale copyright infringements. These pirate iptv vendors have enjoyed large user bases which meshpage cannot claim, simply because they chose more popular (and more copyright problems) technology. Meshpage chose area where there’s significantly less copyright problems and is already paying the price for that decision as reduced user counts. You have yourself constantly complained that users are not interested in our technology and there’s no real end users using meshpage’s technology. Now you know why this is necessary. The more popular alternative have significantly bigger copyright problems.
Re: Re: Re:12
Yet you still infringed Scott Cawthon’s copyrights.
Re: Re: Re:13
This just means that we need stricker copyright policies.
Re: Re: Re:14 It’s “stricter”, by the by.
No measure of strictness beyond disabling Meshpage’s primary functionality would’ve stopped you from infringing on Scott Cawthon’s copyright. Which you totally did.
Re: Re: Re:15
This isn’t true. If the sketchfab which originally distributed the material had tracked the original authors of the material more carefully, I would have gained information about original author names and avoided the whole problem. Basically web sites should track the creation process more carefully, instead of trusting uploaders to provide correct information. If scott’s ownership of the material would be known, the whole issue can be avoided. This can only happen if sketchfab stops trusting uploaded files and information provided by users, and do some more careful analysis of the copyright status of the material.
Re: Re: Re:16
You infringed on Scott Cawthon’s copyright; don’t go trying to pass the buck for your laziness in re: sourcing materials.
Re: Re: Re:17
Fundamentally you need to trust the authors of the materials. If you don’t have this trust, you cannot use any material at all. But when you trust other people, there’s danger that scammers take advantage of your trust.
Re: Re: Re:18 Trust, but verify.
Not verifying was your mistake; that’s how you ended up infringing Scott Cawthon’s copyrights.
Re: Re: Re:19
Given that I haven’t seen scott’s game, there’s no verification steps that would have revealed the problem. It is just pure chance that techdirt had people who have seen the game and can recognize the models. Without that lucky chance, there’s no way to detect the problem.
Automatic systems where you reject all mp4 files are significantly more efficient in blocking unwanted copyright infringements.
Re: Re: Re:20
Ignorance is not an excuse for infringing copyrights. Which you did.
Re: Re: Re:21
I can use any defense I want. You shouldn’t try to prefilter the defenses simply because you have already made your mind. Its important free speech issue… even though you might not like the valid conclusions, the speech shouldn’t be blocked.
Re: Re: Re:22
And you’ve undercut all of them with your own previously expressed beliefs about copyright—which we can all look at thanks to your comment history. That makes you a hypocrite as well as a copyright infringer.
Re: Re: Re:23
Nope. The fact that I support stricter copyright following doesn’t undercut the defenses. The stricter version of copyright supports my defenses magnificiently. When I subscribe to stricter copyright version, when courts use sloppy copyright in their decisions, I have no trouble conquering all their rules when I didn’t slip through the cracks. Even if I sometimes fail in my own principles, it never goes over the limits in the sloppy copyright that courts are using. This all means better position for myself.
Re: Re: Re:24
You’ve decried Fair Use/Dealing in the past; don’t deny it, because I can read your comment history. You don’t get to use it as a defense for your infringement of Scott Cawthon’s copyrights and avoid being called on your blatant hypocrisy in re: your desire to avoid the same punishments you say should be visited upon everyone else (up to and including state-sanctioned executions).
You infringed a copyright. For what reason should you get to escape the same fate you think everyone else should suffer for doing so, even if their infringement was as “innocent” as yours? (Please note that “I support stricter copyright” is an unacceptable answer.)
Re: Re: Re:25
I didn’t claim fair use as a defense.
Re: Re: Re:26
In fact, my defenses are:
1) failure to state a claim
2) removal of copyright management information by 3rd parties
3) license (with the scam artist)
4) extensive preparation against this kind of problems
5) well executed protection against hollywood’s copyright claims (scott isn’t in hollywood)
6) software developer/author status
7) general trust to fellow humans (which failed in this case)
Can you recognize that “fair use” isn’t one of the defenses?
Re: Re: Re:27
And all of your defenses still don’t change the fact that you infringed on Scott Cawthon’s copyright.
Re: Re: Re:28
well, given that you haven’t provided working version of time machine, nothing can really fix the underlying issue. So declared as moot.
Re: Re: Re:29
You still infringed on a copyright, though. Live with it.
Re: Re: Re:30
its still better than what your status is. You don’t even know what “moot” means and you’re lazy bastard who cannot get even a web site done.
Re: Re: Re:31
Functioning people don’t wait for the government to drop billions of dollars into their bank account. Or threaten to rape and murder others in the name of copyright.
You’re a has-been, Pulkinnen, and not even the good kind.