Are ‘Fast Movies’ Really A Substitute For The Real Thing? Or Just Good Marketing?
from the psst:-they're-good-marketing dept
There’s an interesting post on the TorrentFreak blog about “fast movies“:
These heavily edited copies of mainstream movies aim to summarize key plot lines via voice-over narration in about 10 minutes. While no replacement for the real thing, these edits accumulated millions of views and incurred the wrath of rightsholders, leading to the arrest of three people in Japan.
As that rightly points out, fast movies are not a substitute for watching the entire film. An earlier report on the same Web site indicates that the Japanese film industry disagrees:
the losses cited by rightsholders are huge – 95 billion yen (US$ 856.7m) in the past 12 months alone, roughly $10 per ‘fast movie’ view when working in the 80 million views cited by CODA [a Japanese anti-piracy organisation].
This seems to be the classic “lost sales” fallacy – that every unauthorized copy of a work represents a $10 sale that didn’t happen. That’s unrealistic: many people browse movie clips online out of curiosity, and never had any intention of paying to watch the entire film. As the US District Judge James P. Jones wrote in a criminal copyright case in 2008, reported by Ars Technica:
Those who download movies and music for free would not necessarily purchase those movies and music at the full purchase price. [A]lthough it is true that someone who copies a digital version of a sound recording has little incentive to purchase the recording through legitimate means, it does not necessarily follow that the downloader would have made a legitimate purchase if the recording had not been available for free.
There’s another important angle, missing even from the judge’s wise words. The “lost sales” view completely overlooks the “gained sales” that also result from people discovering new titles in these ways. They may use the latter as a taster, and then go on to make a purchase that they had not originally been planning. That seems likely to happen in the case of the “fast movies”, since they are not only much shorter than the original, they typically have only a voice-over instead of the full audio track.
For a film that is worth watching, the “fast movie” versions act as excellent marketing material. Rather than suing the people who make these kind of trailers, maybe the Japanese film industry should support them.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon. Originally posted to Walled Culture.
Filed Under: copyright, fast movies, japan, lost sales
Comments on “Are ‘Fast Movies’ Really A Substitute For The Real Thing? Or Just Good Marketing?”
If your movie is so shallow that it can be completely replaced with a 10-minite summary (or evem the trailer) then perhaps it really isn’t all that truly valuable in the first place.
Re:
The problem often is not that the movie is so shallow that it can be replaced by a 10-minute summary but that there isn’t enough substance for a 10-minute summary. That’s easier to mask using 120 minutes of padding than 8.
'Wow that was bad, guess I'll skip that one...'
If watching a ten minute summary of your movie is enough to replace the experience of watching the whole thing the problem is not on the end of the people making those summary versions.
Re:
Great minds think alike.
… and so do ours.
Re: Re:
While fools seldom differ. 🙂
Re: Re:
It was rather funny to start typing up my comment when there were no others posted only to hit Post Comment and see that you’d said basically the same thing in that time.
Is that what Sventoonie is?
8mm short versions of movies
Back when people had 8mm projectors and movie cameras, a number of movies were released in short single reel versions. They were obviously heavily edited. They were often westerns or adventures and movies aimed at children. None of them ever won an Oscar.
The Japanese film industry must be furious about wikipedia
Heaven forbid, that someone would spend the same 10 minutes reading the wikipedia plot summary and then never watch the movie. Those are lost sales, those are!
Re: Was about to say the same thing...
I totally agree, if Japanese rightsholders prohibit revealing the plot of a novel even outside their country (such as subpoenaing a english youtuber from the U.S), you might as well go after wikipedia. They too reveal plot summaries of various fiction works.
Hell, just someone being physically next to another talking about a fiction’s plot may very well be a lost sale.
If you like a movie. You, ll buy it or watch it on a streaming service, many games became big hits after people made videos about them on YouTube, but there’s no fair use law in Japan, so the law on copyright is different from American law. A ten minute clip does not replace a 80 minute movie
"Lost sales fallacy"?
I think there are lost sales galore indeed. You only describe the case where watching a summary convinces you that the entire movie would be worth watching, contrary to uninformed expectations.
But those uninformed expectations are there for a reason: the bulk of movies these days are embellished boring crap and looking through summaries helps you to only spend actual money on movies that are worth watching to you.
As an example of a non-action movie that you cannot really condense without loss, I can think of “Down by Law”. There doesn’t really happen a lot but you need all of it nevertheless. And as an action movie that is not really significantly condensible, “Terminator 2” comes to mind. The rest of the franchise is pretty much fast-forwardable, partly to the degree where already the time you spend fast-forwarding feels like a waste (the first one at least serves as a lower-budget prequel). But that one, in spite of being replete with action scenes, actually uses them for progressing the plot rather than replacing it.
Sure, there are movies where you watch the summary and buy the DVD and watch them with friends on the big silver screen half a dozen times. But the bulk is of the “no way I am wasting my time and money on the full version of this” kind.
Lost sale. The summaries you are supposed to watch are the trailers.
Re:
Trailers are appetizers, not summaries.
Re: Re:
What, you’ve never seen a trailer that summarized the entire movie?
Re: Re: Re:
Ever eaten an appetizer as a meal?
Re: Re: Re:2
Damn straight I have.
Re:
While I might be inclined to agree with you that such videos might result in ‘lost sales’ in the form of people realizing that the full movie is garbage before having to pay to see it you’d likely not be able to get the people using the term to agree that that’s what’s happening, even if refusing to do so essentially requires admitting that their ‘cinematic masterpiece’ can be distilled down into a ten minute summary and lose nothing of value in the process.
Re: Re:
But you could say the same about bad reviews.
(Which of course is why so many businesses try to get bad reviews taken down, and often use frivolous copyright claims to do it.)
Re:
A trailer does not summarize the plot. Its intent is to sell you the movie. But it is not summarizing the plot. I have noted a few times in my life that Suicide squad (2016) was disappointing to me because the movie the trailer sold me is not the movie I got. I was sold on a movie where the suicide squad is sent to deal with something only to discover the something is the Joker, putting them through a carnival of horrors. Generic end of the world by mcguffin fight rock monsters? not really in that trailer.
Because trailers are not summaries.
Trailers-Summaries-Tasters
“The “lost sales” view completely overlooks the “gained sales” that also result from people discovering new titles in these ways.”
And this – gained sales – is why you will find “taster” samples of food at grocery stores (at least, you could, in the time before the plague) and why you can go ahead and munch on those, free from fear of being sued for not paying full price for a wedge of cheese for that tiny piece on a toothpick.
They could always check out cinemasins Everything Wrong With movie-name in x minutes
They get away with tons of clips from the movies and you get a pretty decent summary of the movie. Hope they’re not the next target.
If you’re gearing up to see the sequel, sometimes it’s nice to refresh on the earlier films…
Honestly part of why I avoid trailers nowadays is that the entire design ethos of those has switched to revealing every single plot twist of the film up front, so you know exactly what you are getting. I don’t see how these are any different to the stuff the studios officially put out to market their product.
They had to be doing a better job than the commercials for the movies where they manage to give away all the good parts… or make up scenes that aren’t actually part of the film. (See also: Adrian Brody with 200 predator target dots)
OMG they watched this thing and totes didn’t come to our movie!! It has to be because the 10 minute summary stole the money we should have gotten by luring them in to see a movie that they decided they hated part way through because we lie in our trailers and commercials.
(See also: Netflix & the grooming children accusations for the French film about a Muslim girl coming of age while competing in dance competition all based on press rather than the content.)
Its not a new phenomenon either… (see also: Sam Elliot in ‘Lifeguard’ (1976) where the promo materials made it look like it was about him & hot chicks which it was not).
If the 10 min movie lost you a sale, I know its hard to understand, but maybe just maybe what you promoted vs what you delivered were 3 different things.
If you promote it as an action flick but its mainly a romantic comedy with maybe 2 actions scenes you’re lying and people feel they can no longer trust you saying what the film really is.
How many losses have you calculated are caused by people paying for a ticket to see something & getting something else instead? They remember getting burned and then your opening weekend is smaller because they are waiting to hear if you’re still lying about the content of the films.
If I see a movie promoted by ‘Twisted Pictures’ (Saw Franchise) that looks scary and get to the theater and its a remake of the notebook with no real gore or scares… Imma not running right out to see the next release you do, gonna wait and trying to figure out what the movie really is.
If your industry and lose billions from people seeing 10 min summaries of movies & deciding not to go to the theater to see it… its not the summary that is the problem, its the shitty & often misrepresented content being exposed before they pay their hard earned cash to an industry that likes to lie & make things up… like their trillions of lost dollars b/c someone saw parts of a film then decided it wasn’t worth their time or money.
Re:
My favorite example of selling me the wrong movie:
Suicide Squad (2016). It wasn’t * bad *, but no one came in expecting featureless rock monsters and a generic save the world plot. The trailers set the Joker to be the villian, and that his appearance creates dread, like this is way worse than we expected. Then its a generic film with the joker barely there.
They made plenty of other mistakes, but selling me the wrong movie is a big part of it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I think you misunderstand the "substitute" thing..
Basically there’s easy way to detect copyright infringement:
1) the product would not be possible without the original existing first
2) the product is being distributed in the market without permission from the copyright owner of the original
3) or if permission was asked, the license terms are not being followed to the letter
The (1) ensures that there’s a “copy” being distributed, instead of creating it from scratch. The (2) checks if permission was requested or not.
The (3) checks that copyright owners interests are being fulfilled.
These are the only thing required to prove copyright infringement. Fast movies clearly ticks every box in this definition.
Re:
So do film reviews, unauthorized making-of books, and Mad Magazine parodies. Your definition isn’t very good.
Here’s a good link from Stanford on fair use analysis; it’s a bit more precise and detailed.
Fast Movies may indeed be infringing. But not because of some overbroad analysis you just made up.
Re: Re:
I mean jeez, the more I think about it the worse this definition is. “The product would not be possible without the original existing first” describes anything that was influenced by something else. Tomb Raider wouldn’t exist without Indiana Jones. Galaxy Quest wouldn’t exist without Star Trek. The Simpsons wouldn’t exist without The Flintstones, which wouldn’t exist without The Honeymooners. The entire superhero genre wouldn’t exist without Superman, who wouldn’t exist without characters like Doc Savage.
Hell, Ghostbusters wouldn’t exist without Saturday Night Live and the National Lampoon. You could make a pretty good case that When Harry Met Sally wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for Your Show of Shows.
If it weren’t for Jeri Ryan’s divorce, Barack Obama would likely not have been elected to the Senate in 2004. That would mean that every single book, movie, podcast, interview, or news report about the Obama presidency would not be possible without Star Trek: Voyager existing first.
So really, this definition of copyright infringement isn’t so much “easy” as “completely insane.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
This only proves the first element of copyright infringement, i.e. copying.
There’s still plenty of room for avoiding copyright infringement, i.e. you can actually get licenses to the material you use. With a license, the copying is actually allowed.
Re: Re: Re:2
You don’t need a license for something that was influenced by something else, Terop. George Lucas didn’t need a license from Akira Kurosawa to make Star Wars. Mel Brooks and Buck Henry didn’t need a license from Ian Fleming and Albert Broccoli to make Get Smart.
Not a single one of the examples I’ve listed needed a license. Are you really under the impression that people get a license from the Star Trek rightsholders in order to write books about President Obama, or did you just stop reading my post after the second sentence?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
The whole idea of copyright law is to get money flowing from users towards the original authors of the material. If the same ideas are being reused over and over again, but the original inventor of the ideas is starving, there’s higher probability that the next idea simply isn’t being developed at all, when the authors need to find other ways to obtain compensation.
Re: Re: Re:4
Wrong, the real purpose of copyright has always been to protect the interests of printers and publishers. Think of the poor starving artists has always been the cry of the middlemen who want more moneu, while keeping the artists starving.
Re: Re: Re:4
The person who invented the horse-drawn carriage has not made money on that invention since cars started being used, and cars continued to be produced. And yet, you don’t see governments falling over themselves to reward the estate of the horse-drawn carriage inventor with money.
Market forces are a thing. You could arrest and execute every single pirate today and it would not convince anyone to start using Meshpage as an option for children.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
I don’t think this is true. The pirate sites are attracting millions of people to the illegal warez, and if all those potential customers were forwarded to legal products, some accidental customers would find meshpage too.
While I currrently have no feature implemented in meshpage. which would allow me to profit from any customers bumping into my tech. Still I’m exploring various ways to turn the technology into money. We tried itch.io which generated $2, and fiverr which generated $46 for teaching idiots to use the tech, then nft folks had noone interested in the gems I put to the secret sauce, then it was available in flippa for two weeks under price $150,000, but noone was interested in the copyright ownership. Basically copyrights don’t seem to be good way to generate living for authors.
Re: Re: Re:6
Blender costs $0, and there are plenty of online videos showing how to use it. While it is a complex program, people only meed to learn the bits that are of use to them. The community and assets built up around Blender are a large part of its success.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
This proves that your god blender cannot even get their money situation with the software market working properly. Price of zero is only offered when customers are not otherwise buying the complex piece of software. So this doesn’t actually solve the copyright issues, the target is to get authors/copyright owners earn enough money that they can support their living style simply by writing software, but when the software is given away freely to the customers, the authors of such software need to obtain additional sources of income unrelated to the provided software product. This generally hurts the development activities and thus the software quality suffers. Now we’ve got a reason why blender’s quality isn’t as good as it should be.
Re: Re: Re:8
You said it yourself. Copyrights aren’t a good way to make income. And that’s because a guarantee of income was never a part of copyright law, no matter how many grandmothers you rape to make it true.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
It is not part of copyright law. The guarantee of income is part of government’s promise: If you work hard and create copyrighted works, the work will be rewarded with equivalent money reward. This kind of promises do not need to be part of the law, instead it just needs actions from government’s policy makers to ensure that the people who create copyrighted works are (on average) rewarded for the effort they spend for the well-being of the science and useful arts. While the system has got significant problems with compensation part, its clear that government has promised appropriate rewards for science and useful arts.
Re: Re: Re:10
Citation desperately needed, as anybody can create a copyrighted work, and if that was true, the world would fail as nobody would be producing the necessities of life.
Re: Re: Re:11
Yes, but everyone also needs compensation for the work they’re doing for the well-being of the society. So it’s not surprise that anyone can create copyrighted work, given that everyone will need compensation.
anyone can start producing the necessities of life too, if they so wish.
Re: Re: Re:12
And pray tell, when did the government ever guarantee payment to you in exchange only and exclusively for making Meshpage?
Copyright protection offers no guarantee of financial success.
Re: Re: Re:13
This government’s promise was made in 1983, long before meshpage was available. Basically the exact details of the promise are as follows:
1) software developer’s main work product is copyrighted works
2) from the end result, software developers need to be able to extract money from
3) if extracting money from end result software is not working well, then next step is to sell developer’s time. But this is worse situation than if you can sell end product
4) Copyright law is the main mechanism of how the money gets transferred all the way from customers to the middlemans to the authors.
5) there exist universities that teach all the necessary details to do software development professionally
6) university ensures that the stuff they teach has good outlook in the future, and the time frame is always 30 years in the future
This is basically it.
Re: Re: Re:14
Nowhere in that inane pile of drivel is a citation of law, statute, court ruling, or contractual obligation that your government knowingly and explicitly promised you direct monetary compensation in exchange only and exclusively for the act of creating Meshpage. Hell, there isn’t even anything in your bullshit that says the government has ever promised anyone direct monetary compensation only for the act of creating software.
how can you be this fucking stupid and still function
Re: Re: Re:15
In a sense, Tero isn’t wrong, albeit extremely roundabout in his ranting. I think it does kinda suck a lot that universities in particular keep having their curricula becoming outdated and tertiary education is becoming increasingly irrelevant in an employee landscape oversaturated with degree holders.
That said, Tero’s approach of worshipping copyright and kissing the ground where it walks would do nothing to solve that problem.
Re: Re: Re:16
Except, my approach actually recognizes where the customers currently are. Yellow press always has stories where a pirate site had 2 million users and the criminals were driving with lamborghinis from their illicit income sources. All this was made possible because customers are flooding the pirate sites with download attempts in search for pirated hollywood movies and stream sources.
When customers choose to obtain their content from the pirate sites and not from legimate authors, copyright is obviously the correct solution. We need to get pirate sites disappear and sued away from the globe, so that those customers need to jump from service to another until they decide it’s enough pirate sites and they would choose legal services instead.
Once they choose legal service, copyright has done it’s job, and then we need to find another way to attract users to our site. But that’s ordinary competition between services. While meshpage might have problems even with ordinary competition, the current market is completely impossible, given that we need to compete against every hollywood studio on the planet when users consider the studio’s services free-of-charge. This level of competition shouldn’t be needed, and copyright is designed to solve the problem.
Re: Re: Re:17
The bulk of your complaints is the fact that you have no users, so no, it’s fair to say you do not know where your customers currently are. For a software you claim to be useful for children you’ve done very little to actually market it towards children.
(You also like to boast that a lack of users is somehow also a selling point of your technology, but that’s neither here nor there as far as this point is concerned.)
The few times operators have been hauled to court, investigators have yet to haul in monetary amounts that high. Certainly not enough to own and drive multiple luxury cars. The idea that pirate site operators are rich beyond their wildest dreams is a nice bogeyman for your purposes, but it’s simply not based in reality.
Or they borrow an eBook or Blu-Ray or Netflix password from a friend or family member. Or they go out of the house and touch grass. Copyright won’t force anyone into paying you money.
Absolutely none of this explains how copyright is supposed to funnel people to Meshpage. People who aren’t using pirate sites or services would still not use Meshpage no matter how much you want to force the government into doing so. The point stands: copyright will not suddenly force people to use Meshpage.
Re: Re: Re:18
It’s the following steps:
1) copyright causes illegal operator to shut down
2) their customers are denied service that they enjoyed before
3) the customers are looking for a replacement
4) the customer bumps into meshpage adverticement and decided to purchase it
There’s clear link from copyright to the customer using meshpage. When this kind of link happens 30 million times, few of those customers will choose meshpage.
Re: Re: Re:10
Creating a copyrighted work is no guarantee of income. Sure, you can write a book you think is destined to become a New York Times best-seller. But nobody will ever be required to buy that book and the government will never be required to give you money only because you wrote that book. Nobody owes you a damn thing only because you made a work that could be copyrighted.
No, they haven’t. No government, to my knowledge, has ever paid anyone for the mere fact that a given person copyrighted a given work they created. The government reward for copyrighting a work is the copyright itself—i.e., the limited government-granted monopoly over the legal distribution of a given work.
Re: Re: Re:10
Here’s the thing about law: if it’s not a part of the law, and no legal precedents exist to make it a part of the law, even assumed, you’ll never collect on that promise. And governments in general have a tight hold on their purse strings. Of all the causes they could spend money on, an irrelevant coder like you with a thirst for rape and murder is the last priority they will have.
Re: Re: Re:10
Setting aside whether or not any government has ever promised that, government promises are unenforceable except where they involve promises to particular entities regarding enforcement actions or administrative procedures or such or are codified in law, executive orders, judicial rulings, written contracts, or ratified treaties. As such, there is no reason to rely on such promises, particularly where, as here, they have no control over the outcome.
But bringing back whether it was promised or not, copyright holders/authors were promised the opportunity to succeed without having to worry about unauthorized copies supplanting the originals in the market for a limited time. That’s it. You are not promised success.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
Our point of view is that the project is already a success when the technology has been developed far enough that it is useful to end users. The success-part doesn’t need money compensation.
But government also promised compensation. This is generally unrelated to the success of the project.
Re: Re: Re:12
Show us the proof that your government—or any government, really—promised to pay you only and specifically because you made a computer application.
I’ll wait.
Re: Re: Re:12
When I say “success” in this context, I mean from a business perspective or from a number-of-users perspective. That you define success differently doesn’t change what I said or what I meant, and you know this.
No, no it did not. You can say that over and over again, but the government did not promise that all authors will be compensated.
Re: Re: Re:13
Government actually need to step in when markets are not providing compensation for authors. It is understood that private investment and private companies cannot reach all areas of the society. When this happens, government has no choice than step in and twist competition and support the entities that market couldn’t compensate.
This failure to get compensation can be caused by many different reasons, but in this case its caused by customers having illegal alternatives available which steals compensation from ordinary authors. I.e. markets are forwarding the compensation to criminals.
When these corruption and illegal activities cannot be stamped out from the market, there is always entities that suffer from the market failure. But everyone in society needs to get income, even if markets valued the products as $48/10years. When there’s actual product available but compensation nowhere to be found, it means some people are working hard without receiving compensation for it. This is usually unwanted situation.
Re: Re: Re:14
Government interference and compensation exists, sure, but not in the context you’d expect for, say, poor agricultural yields or roadbuilding or keeping schools afloat. You might be angry that you don’t get enriched as much as you want, but the fact is nobody is going to compensate you for millions of dollars for creating software nobody has used for 10 years.
People are not using Meshpage, sure, but it’s got nothing to do with “illegal alternatives”. Meshpage isn’t even paid software, it’s free to download.
If you have any evidence of people using “illegal alternatives” which is causing Meshpage to fail to make money, you’d be able to hire lawyers and drag people to court for Meshpage’s failure… but you haven’t.
I know Finland has a pretty robust welfare system, but it’s quite likely that you haven’t only relied on Meshpage as your sole source of income over the past decade. And again, none of this justifies giving you money for Meshpage. If there was any value in Meshpage the way you insist, such that the government of Finland had to make you a millionaire for it, they’d have done so already. Based on your accusations, you seem to think that even the government of Finland is either spraypainting the walls or using illegal alternatives, because they’re not using Meshpage. In which case you’re more than welcome to build a lawsuit and take them to court… but I’d wager you’d lose that bet.
Re: Re: Re:15
torrentfreak is full of articles where mkvcage is swimming in cash after illegally obtaining content owner’s content:
https://torrentfreak.com/judge-recommends-150k-piracy-judgment-against-torrent-site-operator-220620/
or this nitro tv operator losing their lawsuit:
https://torrentfreak.com/nitro-iptv-loses-100m-piracy-lawsuit-leaving-hollywood-studios-fuming-220620/ with “sale of at least 100,363 subscriptions”.
or this tidbit about pirate apps:
https://torrentfreak.com/music-publishers-launch-crackdown-on-copyright-infringing-apps-220617/
This is only a tip of an iceberg, but clearly shows the trend. I.e. pirate customers are flocking to steal the content, and they would be better served if they were using meshpage.
Re: Re: Re:8
Their business model does not rely on selling individual copies, but rather donations. It seems to be working well enough to keep the [Blender Foundation] and its full time employees going. Its rather like Linus Torvalds is paid to manage development of the Linux kernel.
If what you produce is valuable to others they will find ways of supporting you.
Re: Re: Re:6
No one is going to forward customers to Meshpage. We’ve established that your marketing presence is non-existent.
Yeah, if you treat all prospective users and students as “idiots”, it’s hardly surprising why you’ve only made $46 in ten years.
Your entire spiel on this site has been insisting that “copyright guarantees income”. Never mind the fact that this is not what the law in any country actually says, it’s somewhat funny you’re only realizing this now.
Re: Re: Re:6
“Basically copyrights don’t seem to be good way to generate living for authors.”
Oh honey you are so close to getting it.
Re: Re: Re:7
maybe copyrights would work better if we increased penalties for copyright infringement and made the rules stricter?
Re: Re: Re:8
You could try, but as it is copyright judgments don’t even reach the higher ranges of allowed penalties, i.e. $150,000 per infringement. Copyright holders and plaintiffs know it’s in their best interest to not actually aim for this number. It does them little good to bankrupt someone with a large copyright fine, because it means they’re very unlikely to actually see any of that money. Which at the end of the day, is what they really want out of filing these cases.
Case in point, the Jammie Thomas-Rasset and Joel Tenenbaum cases did result in large fines that favored the plaintiffs. But all those large numbers did was qualify the defendants to file for bankruptcy, and the RIAA has yet to see a single cent out of those two “victories”. Increasing the monetary penalties wouldn’t change things. And thanks to the actions of Prenda Law and Malibu Media, judges have become increasingly wary of huge settlement amounts and fines.
As for making the rules stricter, you personally claimed that stricter copyright laws didn’t need to be enforced. But assuming they do get enforced, you can get ready to be hauled to court for infringing on Scott Cawthon’s copyright, because nobody will accept your innocent infringement defense.
Re: Re: Re:4
You have no idea what “the whole idea of copyright law” is.
For example, you are laboring under the misapprehension that copyright covers ideas.
It does not.
It covers expression.
Ideas are not copyrightable.
I recommend you be quiet and listen to people who know more than you do. I linked a Stanford piece about fair use a few posts up. Start by reading that.
That is, if you have the attention span. Given that you can’t even make it all the way through one of my comments, I have my doubts. Why am I still typing? You’re not reading this. You stopped somewhere between the first and second sentence.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Nope, there’s always a path like this: idea->development_activity->tangible_expression_fixing_output_of_the_development->marketing_activity->benefit_for_end_users
see, the ideas are part of the development process even though the copyright protection only kicks in once development is already producing tangible expression.
Re: Re: Re:6
Great. So does that mean you concede that your “easy way to detect copyright infringement” is not actually an accurate definition of copyright infringement and, for example, parodies and reviews do not infringe upon copyrights?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
I never said it covers the situation that your pirating grandmom decides to drop dead during court proceedings and it’ll be the responsibility of the offspring to untangle the mess.
These parodies and reviews are explicitly removed from the definition, simply because I hate all the youtube videos which commit copyright infringement simply because they think their fart videos are covered under some minor copyright exception. It’s always better for copyright, IF YOU DO NOT NEED TO RELY ON COPYRIGHT’s EXCEPTIONS. i.e. following the default copyright rule gets quicker (and thus cheaper) resolutions from courts than if you need to analyze some exceptional situations.
Re: Re: Re:8
This is the first I’m hearing of this idea at all. I had never even considered that you did until you just denied it. Where did that come from?
Re: Re: Re:9
There was at least one case where the RIAA not only sued someone who was dead at the time of the supposed pirating, but gave the grieving family 90 days before promising to come after them for settlement money. Tero might be referring to that, though not for the same reasons as a rational human being with a shred of decency might.
Re: Re: Re:10
If so, he assumed that the accusation was correct and also apparently got the timeline wrong. Unless he thinks people can pirate while dead, which would be an amazing feat.
It also seems like a bit of a non-point. See, his “easy way to detect copyright infringement” may not be able to discern that the alleged infringer died (whether before or after the alleged infringement occurred), but to my knowledge, nothing about such a situation would mean that no copyright infringement occurred in the first place or would fall under one of the exceptions to copyright, so if the goal is simply to detect copyright infringement, there would be no reason to exclude such a situation from detection to begin with. There’s no reason one would expect it to cover such a situation.
Either way, though, this still makes no sense. How this…
…even remotely relates to this…
…or anything else said in this thread is completely beyond me regardless of what situation he’s referring to. That situation had not been brought up previously in this discussion, and it also doesn’t relate to what Thad was responding to, which was about ideas vs. expressions, or what he mentioned specifically, which was regarding parodies and reviews. Whether he came up with this on his own as a pure hypothetical, was referencing the event you mentioned, or was referencing some other event entirely,
Additionally, as far as I’m aware, no one had ever previously accused him of saying that it covered such a situation (which makes sense given the aforementioned reasoning that something only designed to detect copyright infringement and not to decide whether to pursue or threaten legal action or something would have no reason to cover such a case in the first place), nor had that or a similar situation even been vaguely alluded to at all in this comment section prior to terop mentioning it just now.
Frankly, I don’t see why he brought it up in the first place, at least in this context. It neither helps nor harms anyone’s claims in this discussion at all, it is a non sequitur, and really just creates needless confusion at best.
Re: Re: Re:11
Tero has always insisted that Meshpage has a built-in copyright infringement detection system which puts him at the forefront of copyright enforcement unlike other engines – when called out on how bullshit this claim is, Tero’s response is that it’s unfair to insist on standards and fringe cases like the hypothetical he brought up. This will not need to be relevant to the topic on hand; his entire point is “Meshpage is perfect until I say so, and I refuse to play by your standards of perfection.”
You’re right, nobody has. I can only assume that he’s attempting to preempt criticisms of his pet project, since he gets called out on using a third-party 3D model that was likely copyright infringing, thereby proving that his “copyright enforcement” mechanisms don’t actually work any better than his competitors. But then trying to figure him out is a task rivalled by attempting to unravel the Gordian Knot. The only way you’re dealing with it is cutting through all the bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:12
That ends up being fucking hilarious when you know that this system couldn’t even stop him from displaying a rendered model of a character from the Five Nights at Freddy’s franchise that he had no legal right to display using Meshpage.
Re: Re: Re:13
Indeed, and we’re never going to stop calling him out on it every time he insists that his “stricter copyright laws” need to be enforced, followed and worshipped by everyone else. I’ve pointed out that his “innocent infringement” would not be a pleadable defense under his laws, and he’s always insisted that he can’t be held accountable. It really underscores how scummy and hypocritical copyright fanatics are.
Re: Re: Re:14
You missed the point spectacularly. The strict copyright laws are not something that you “enforce” towards other people. That would be completely crazy thing. For honest people to try to follow the law comes just naturally, and it’s for everyone to explicitly choose to follow the law instead of becoming criminal. The strict copyright laws are not meant to be “enforced”, but instead they’re meant to be “followed”. It’s just everyone’s own decision whether they want to follow the law or not. We would prefer if everyone followed the law, but we know half of the people on the planet are some kind of scumbacks who accept money rewards without actually doing the work/corruption and criminal gangs are all over the place, controlling other people’s lives.
This “controlling other people’s lives” is not what strict copyright laws are doing. Only criminal gangs do that. We would prefer if more people followed strict copyright laws, but we understand if you’ve chosen a life of a criminal, and we wish you luck in your chosen occupation.
Re: Re: Re:15
The average “honest person” can still commit copyright infringement completely by accident—something you claim to have done yourself when you learned that you ripped off Scott Cawthon’s copyrighted work. But under the extremist copyright ideology that you’ve expressed over the years (which is available for everyone to see because you can’t delete your comments here), “accidental” infringement would still count as infringement for the purpose of doling out legal punishments such as life-shattering fines, life sentences in prison, and even life-ending executions.
Distinction without a difference.
Yes, it is. Strict copyright laws and their stricer enforcement have changed how people have shared media. Before the 2000s and the Internet boom changed everything, people shared music and movies and games and all sorts of physical media with one another—and the sky never fell. People traded tapes of anime shows from overseas and tape-recorded songs off the radio and passed each other games on floppy disks and recorded movies and TV shows onto VHS tapes and let people borrow their books and tapes and games and such, but the world didn’t devolve into a fiery hell as a result. Only when the sharing went digital—that is, when Napster became a household name—did the major corporations and the copyright lawyers become enamored with the idea of destroying people’s lives even if they only downloaded a song or a movie once every few months (if even that). We didn’t get where we are today with copyright because the MPAA sued, say, a family who tape-recorded a Michael Jackson concert that aired on HBO. (Hint: My family did that. We held onto that tape for years.)
Strict copyright laws will always be about controlling people’s lives. They will always be about trying to funnel people into approved channels for approved content by approved content creators/distributors. They will always be about enforcing certain attitudes and behaviors that the major corporations what control copyright laws believe are best for their continued success. Anyone who says/believes otherwise is only fooling themselves.
Re: Re: Re:15
If you don’t need them enforced, why do you need the government to make them official law? The terms of what stricter copyright laws would involve certainly aren’t practical to enforce based on your requirements, but from your rantings, it’s clear that you’d rather not “enforce” them not because it’s impossible, but because you don’t want to inconvenience yourself.
This would be meaningful if not for the fact that you’ve openly demanded that Prenda Law and Malibu Media should be allowed to sue innocent people.
There’s hundreds, thousands of comments left under the names of tp, meshpage and terop where you requested this. You don’t believe in innocence. The reason why nobody believes you is because you’ve made it clear on multiple occasions that you want everyone to pay up even if they followed the law and no infringement happened.
If a law isn’t enforced, how do you think people get punished for breaking it? How do you think a court gets to decide punishments and fines? Again, if your demanded laws aren’t actually meant to be enforced, but are a series of general guidelines you pray everyone worships, then why insist that the government of Finland adopt them?
Re: Re: Re:16
The advantage of copyright laws does not flow from punishing people. It’s the practices where honest people are following the law and create technologies that respect law’s regulations that contributes most to the advantages that we receive from copyright laws. This is why it’s illegal to break those rules, you will distrupt the normal operation of copyright system if you do not follow the copyright’s permission requirements to the letter.
The people who get punished for breaking copyright law are the people who are not understanding the advantages of the copyright system and instead are trying to find ways around the regulations instead of trying to follow them.
This is why copyright minimalism is dangerous. They’re trying to avoid the responsibilities placed by copyright system instead of trying to fulfill their responsibilities.
Re: Re: Re:17
Copyright law can’t be enforced without punishing people who infringe on copyrights and people won’t follow copyright law if it isn’t enforced. Your point is invalid.
Re: Re: Re:18
this proves that you’ve already quit trying to get the system to work properly. It takes a lifetime to get it working, and many people will claim its impossible to ever get the system to work at all. But you can prove the naysayers wrong if you just work hard towards a better world.
Re: Re: Re:19
You don’t get people to follow the rules by going “please follow these rules”. You get them to follow rules by explaining to them or showing them the consequences for breaking those rules. In re: copyright law, you get people to follow the law by punishing those who violate the law—who infringe on other works—through fines and possibly jail time (and, at least in your extremist belief system, state-sponsored execution). Punishment is a deterrent: “If you don’t want to end up like that asshole, don’t do what they did.”
But when the rules/the law are broken in one way or another(e.g., the DMCA having no real teeth in re: punishing false takedowns), people will be more inclined to either ignore those rules/laws or abuse those laws. When laws are rife for abuse and nobody does anything to fix those laws, people will think even less of those laws.
Back before the Internet allowed mass filesharing—hell, back before the Internet was even a household utility!—people shared all sorts of content physically. They taped songs off the radio and movies off the TV, burned copies of CDs for their friends, lent each other books, and did all kinds of physical sharing of copyrighted content. The sky didn’t fall and the world didn’t crumble under the weight of all that lawbreaking. Hell, the major corporations that you think would’ve been affected by all that lawbreaking didn’t even care enough to send agents door-to-door to search for lawbreakers. Only when the sharing went digital and became easier to do than physical sharing did those corporations suddenly declare the “unlawful” sharing of culture to be the worst thing since the Devil, the Super-Devil, and Manos: The Hands of Fate.
But the thing to remember in all of this is that people who did all that shit back in the days of physical sharing still bought content, too. My own personal history is littered with purchases of books and cassettes and CDs and VHS tapes and DVDs and Blu-rays—as well as taping songs off the radio and burning mixtape CDs and downloading a movie once every few years and watching illicit uploads of MST3K episodes on YouTube.
If you want people to respect copyright law, you should push to have the law reformed in ways that re-balance the deal between copyright holders and the general public—preferably in favor of the general public, who is also supposed to benefit from copyright by way of the public domain. Trying to be an authoritarian about this shit and thinking the government should be cracking down even harder on copyright infringement (to the point where you have explicitly endorsed state-sponsored execution as a punishment for infringement of any kind) won’t earn you anything but scorn, derision, and a well-deserved round of “shut the fuck up”s from everyone with a sense of moral decency.
To wit: Shut the fuck up, Tero.
Re: Re: Re:19
What, exactly, have you done to work hard towards a better world? Because Meshpage has done nothing of the sort. It hasn’t drawn any of the market away from Blender or Roblox despite your claims of it being a child-friendly modeling and hosting software.
Copyright holders themselves have quit trying to get the system to work properly. Under the law, copyright holders would have taken accused people to court to prove their case. What they do is threaten to ruin lives through a war of attrition, against the people least likely and least capable of fighting back. The RIAA went from a shining beacon of artist defense in the early 2000s to an organization of controversy by the later half of the decade. For good reason. Nobody likes a bully, or people who support bullies like you.
Re: Re: Re:20
removal of technological limits, like unable to display 3d graphics on a web page. its a better world when the web is full of cool 3d graphics.
Re: Re: Re:21
Your entire shtick on this blog has been to demand others follow your limits. You couldn’t remove technological limits if it meant tearing your way out of a soaked paper bag.
Re: Re: Re:12
This system is necessary. The management originally offered a project to develop video-encoding and video-decoding technology for me to develop. This was rejected because we couldn’t see viable way to license hollywood movies. The video-decoding technology’s main content that users want is hollywood movies, and if licensing those content items is impossible with the current setup, there’s significant danger that the technology developed ends up being used in pirate operations.
But given that we rejected video technology, our next technology area needs to be able to solve the problems that caused the rejection for video tech. Thus copyright detection technology is absolutely needed for meshpage and gameapi builder. This is the price we pay for having courage to reject broken technology areas.
Our current status with copyright detection technology is pretty good shape. We have utilized limits for script sizes to prevent encoding pirated images as script files, and the main download mechanism actually checks that you’re the owner of the material by rejecting downloads that are not coming from your own hosting space.
Re: Re: Re:13
And your system has failed, since it couldn’t even stop you from ripping off Scott Cawthon, you filthy fucking thief.
Re: Re: Re:13
There is no “management”, Tero. You’ve already made it clear you hate working for people. You hate working with people. The entire selling point for Meshpage is that it’s done by one person. You’ve made it abundantly clear that you don’t report to anyone because you hate other humans. There is no management for you to work with.
I don’t doubt that you think the technology is necessary, where anyone with a sane mind disagrees is the idea that you have a functioning system to start with.
Re: Re: Re:14
But you wouldn’t be able to verify that, given that you never even got a cube to the screen with builder.
Re: Re: Re:15
The fact that your allegedly cutting-edge system failed to detect that your purchased model infringed on someone else’s copyright, license or no, is verification that your system doesn’t function the way that stricter copyright law requires. Which is to prevent copyright infringement before it happens.
That much is clear, regardless of whether you have users.
Re: Re: Re:16
Even if it just detected 90% of all copyright infringements, the system is still very useful to have. Your alternative solution is to ignore the whole problem and your success in the same task is 0%, so 90% is still significantly better than what you can do. I can just declare victory in this task.
Re: Re: Re:17
Except it’s done nothing of the sort. All you have is a claim, despite not having any database or list of copyrighted works to detect and avoid.
90% is meaningless in the context of stricter copyright law. Your role models in the RIAA want a system that prevents infringement before it happens, with zero chance of failure. Even if you did have a system that detected 90% of infringements, they’d call it a failure. Stricter copyright laws would require you to call it a failure.
Re: Re: Re:18
It doesn’t need 1-1 matching of the works. All that is required is that the hosting location of the content items is coming from author’s own hosting space (and thus allows suing the publisher if the collection has any infringing content). While it cannot identify which works are infringing, since that requires human review, it can make procecuting and tracking of the pirates easier when the content is located in same user’s hosting space than who is doing the publishing.
Re: Re: Re:19
So your proof is not whether works are infringing, but the ownership of where stuff is hosted. That is a terrible system. It’s the equivalent of a burglar leaving stolen goods at your house and you getting arrested for it. Hell, if you don’t even need a list of works to prove if works are infringing, there’s nothing stopping someone from accusing you of copyright infringement of every single work and animation you used Meshpage to generate. (For what it’s worth, I don’t think that’s likely, but without a list to prove it, you’d be just as liable.)
Copyright enforcement and laws like Article 13 are built on the premise and claim that human review isn’t necessary, or that human review is too slow to effectively enforce copyright. The fact that human review is needed is a pretty big indictment against your claim that your inbuilt copyright system is groundbreaking, which is not a surprise since nothing you’ve made has any “core functionality”.
Re: Re: Re:20
Copyright system was built in 1700s/1800s when computers were not available. Animals simply couldn’t do the copyright checking, so human review was the only thing encoded to the laws. Since the laws were fixed several hundred years ago, human review is still essential element of the copyright system.
Re: Re: Re:21
Which would be reassuring if your human review wasn’t so regularly erroneous, you end up suing more innocent people than guilty ones.
Your human review is trusted in the same way that a pedophile is trusted to not molest children.
Re: Re: Re:8
Well, no, because the fact that your system claims to detect grandparents as pirates and bring them to court doesn’t actually make your system look good. Not that it’s stopped the RIAA from trying, there’s been a few cases where they sued dead people, or demanded that the children of dead people show up on the deceased’s behalf. Neither scenario put the RIAA in a good light or position, and could easily have been avoided if the RIAA had chosen not to harass people least capable of fighting back just because they wanted a quick buck.
So it’s illegal not because it’s illegal, but because you personally think the law is dumb. And you wonder why nobody thinks stricter copyright laws exist. When the law changes based on one person’s opinions, it opens itself to multiple avenues for rife abuse. But you’d like that, wouldn’t you Tero, because you’re a fan of abuse.
Auguste Rodin’s “The Kiss” has been parodied multiple times. Not only that, said parodies have featured in their own sections of art museums. I might not like those reinterpretations, but clearly enough people do, or they value those parodies enough to warrant designations as cultural contributions.
The idea that you’ve been looking for “fart videos” suggests to me that you’ve been on Rule 34 looking for some very specific sexual fetishes, and it is quite telling that you’d use that as your example.
Or you could do a simple test: how much money is a single video making for a YouTube uploader? How much money do you think a single video makes? If it’s barely several dollars, maybe don’t spend thousands of dollars chasing after imaginary money you know the defendant doesn’t have.
Re: Re: Re:8
So, you removed them from the definition not for any principled reason but just because you, personally, don’t like them. Or, rather, you don’t like the ones you personally have specifically seen on YouTube, which doesn’t cover every fair use for parody or review that is on YouTube or even necessarily every fair use for parody or review that you have personally seen, let alone all such instances that actually exist. That is a terrible reason! “I don’t like this, therefore it should still be considered copyright infringement even though the law explicitly states otherwise,” is not a valid or reasonable argument. I’m sorry, but whether or not you like how it gets used (at least within a particular subset) doesn’t justify explicitly excluding them from your definition. That’s not how anything works.
I sincerely hope I’m misunderstanding you because that is just so stupid, even for you!
Also, these are not “minor” copyright exceptions; they are absolutely key ones in order to allow copyright and free speech to coexist at all. These are absolutely essential under the Constitution. Copyright is not intended to and should never be used to suppress criticism or commentary.
The whole idea is that other people should not be making copies of your work to compete with the original for the duration of copyright protections of that work so as to allow the author the opportunity to get as much profit as they are able to before allowing others the ability to use it to build new expressions from that, thus incentivizing authors to create more art or whatever to better our culture. A key part of freedom of speech is the freedom to criticize and comment on people and things, including instances of copyrighted expression. A review or parody is not intended to replace the original but to criticize and comment on the original, often using parts of the original to illustrate certain points.
Also, for much the same reasons that whether or not something is copyrightable does not and should not depend on the quality of or effort put into the work, the quality of and effort put into a review or parody of a work does not and should not determine whether or not it is or should be protected by the 1A and excluded from being copyright infringement. The law should never consider the quality of a work (whether it is original or a review or parody of another work) when determining anything whatsoever. The courts should not be in the business of critiquing works of any sort.
Why? Why is it better to not rely on copyright’s exceptions? And even if it’s better for copyright itself, so what? That doesn’t mean it’s better in general or better for the creator or anything like that.
Additionally, ideas are one of those exceptions to copyright, one which you acknowledge and seem to agree with. So are facts. Why is it better for copyright or in any other way to not rely on those exceptions?
That’s not entirely true. The “default” copyright rule (without any of its exceptions) is that copying any part of a work is infringing on that work. Things like whether or not that work (or that part of the work) is copyrightable in the first place (so the expression of ideas rather than the ideas or facts themselves), whether or not the copying was substantial, whether or not it was fair use, whether or not it was scéne a faire, etc. are all exceptions.
Also, determining whether copying occurred is actually the harder part to determine early on in court. Such an issue is not typically resolved in summary judgment, and it’s almost never resolved at the motion-to-dismiss stage, which is by far the fastest and cheapest way to resolve a case. This is because, generally speaking, all that is needed for the claim to get past dismissal is that copying and access are adequately pled, which is a low bar, and getting past summary judgment just means that it is both adequately pled but also that the evidence is not definitively against that assertion and hasn’t been conceded. These are not high bars for a plaintiff to reach in most cases.
Exceptions to copyright, on the other hand, are far more commonly used to get a copyright-infringement suit to be dismissed or resolved in summary judgment. So no, not having to analyze such “exceptional” situations does not, in fact, generally get you cheaper or quicker resolutions in court. You have it completely backwards.
Re: Re: Re:9
You’re not. Tero really, genuinely is that stupid. This is the guy who thinks that the Finnish government owes him millions of dollars because he spent ten years intellectually sucking his own cock.
Re: Re: Re:9
Yes, it’s perfectly valid for me to prepare for the situation where the government changes to law in this aspect. If my analysis considers it copyright infringement and I build software that considers it copyright infringement, it’s not any worse than allowing that copying activity. Not all flexibility that the law allows need to be utilized. Software that does “better” decisions than what law enforces are perfectly valid pieces of software, as long as it does not stretch the rules to the wrong direction. Basically it means that strict copyright rules are always better for software and copyright minimalism is potentially illegal because it tries to stretch the rules to the wrong direction.
Re: Re: Re:10
Yes or no: If copyright minimalism is potentially illegal, would artists and content creators who give away copies of their own works be violating copyright law? Do you believe the law should force artists and content creators to offer copies of their works for a price?
ProTip: Copyright minimalism isn’t illegal. Your wishing for it to be illegal won’t make it so.
Re: Re: Re:11
Giving away copies of their own works isn’t what copyright minimalists are doing. Copyright minimalists do not even own any content themselves. They’re just freeriding on other people’s properties, and always stretching the legal borders to direction which has explicitly been declared illegal.
Re: Re: Re:12
…fucking what
Re: Re: Re:12
You literally don’t know what you’re talking about. Plenty of copyright minimalists create their own original content and offer it for free. Additionally, no one is doing… whatever it is you’re asserting.
Re: Re: Re:10
The government is not going to change their laws on the whims and fancies of a self-absorbed madman, short of you getting into Parliament and making Meshpage the state religion of Finland. Which would in turn make that scenario impossible, because unlike the US, Finland is not going to let such a buffoon take the reins of government.
Which would still require a court to accept that claim. And until the government makes it so, what you’re claiming is little more than the wet dreams of a sociopath who believes in raping grandmothers for copyright money.
Your definitions of “copyright minimalism” include acts like hearing what song is playing on public radio or telling someone how to get to the train station without the use of a map.
Re: Re: Re:10
That’s not how it works. At all. Many of the exceptions referenced are there because, otherwise, copyright law would be unconstitutional.
This isn’t even about copyright minimalism because the current system most certainly is not copyright minimalism. If anything, the current system leans slightly towards maximalism, though it certainly doesn’t go that far.
Also, in truth, no copyright laws would be ideal for software because the software doesn’t have to be made to enforce copyright at all, not even via copyright strikes. But even setting that aside, strict copyright laws like you push for are not solvable by any algorithm. Again: people can lie about whether they have a license, they could be mistaken about the scope of the license, and they could circumvent copy-protection or -detection measures. Even the strictest copyright laws pushed for include licenses and permissions. Additionally, any such system would require a database of all copyrighted works ever made along with their holders and licenses, which is fundamentally impractical or even impossible (since not all copyrighted works ever get registered).
Finally, you state that copyright minimalism stretches copyright law in the “wrong” direction. On what grounds could you assert that it is the “wrong direction”, objectively? (If it’s subjectively wrong but not objectively wrong, then it is not evidence that maximalism is better for software, specifically.)
Re: Re: Re:11
This isn’t true. You can build a proper copyright checking system without having access to the original files.
Basically the copyright checking isn’t based on the file contents. The permission granted or not granted is independent of the actual contents of the files. Same for author’s or copyright owner’s identity. Same for author’s sales locations, or receipts of purchases.
Basically copyright is downplaying the actual contents. So if you had idea that you need to do 1-1 matching of the contents files, then that is mistaken. Proper copyright system would introduce concepts like “permissions”, “author names”, “dependencies”, “sales locations” to the terminology of the software. Given that software can implement any concepts whatsoever, these copyright-related concepts are also possible with software. You simply cannot argue that encoding this terminology to your software is somehow impossible.
This proves that you don’t need global database of all works on the planet. Its enough that your 3rd party authors are filling web forms which asks for this information, and publisher can rely on correctness of the information (because it’s illegal to give invalid info to a web form when it asks for certain specific information for legal purposes), and if there’s any doubts about the content in question, checking the provided information can resolve any issues.
Now the nft area is bringing the concept of receipts to the software systems, and I expect we’ll see other copyright related concepts soon introduced too.
Re: Re: Re:12
You could have a system, sure, if all you had was a list of titles to go by – but it wouldn’t be proper. When all you have is titles, what you’re going to get is false positives. Then again, you don’t believe in innocence anyway, which is why your claims that you “innocently infringed” on Scott Cawthon’s model are laughably hypocritical.
If your plan is to leverage other data points like a purchase to prove that someone has legal rights to use content, that’s not necessarily a bad plan – except that it’s also very easy to fool. To wit, you yourself spent money on a downloadable package of 3D models that held a license, except that one of those models was illegal without your knowledge. Licensing data by itself won’t prove a thing for you in that case. If anything, the fact that you paid for it would implicate you for willingly using stolen goods.
Anyone who’s been following the news on NFTs and crypto know that the scene has seen very troubling times. The value of NFTs has essentially plummeted with most of the money swimming between the top 1% richest users, hoping for more suckers to buy off their overpriced receipts. There’s also the fact that NFTs themselves don’t confer you the rights or copyrights to anything besides the ownership of a receipt, so… no, NFTs won’t help you there. And that’s not even going into how easy it is to hack and manipulate wallets and NFTs.
Re: Re: Re:13
They made it easy to create new nft’s, but forgot to provide good tools to check if the contents of the nft is valid product instead of some joke designed to trick would-be purchasers.
I put 10 years of work to the nft and still noone is buying it, so it proves that their system is not working properly. Paywalls normally have the same problem, you cannot see the actual contents until after deciding to spend money on it, and thus clients cannot trust the validity of the content. Purchasers need to trust the marketing department’s explanation of what is contained inside the nft, and if that message is unable to provide necessary details, clients are wary of purchasing anything at all.
Re: Re: Re:14
NFTs are… not a product. They’re barely a receipt. They’re nothing more than an identifier to offer some veneer of virtual exclusivity, based on technology that has had very troubling implications when it comes to how easy it is to manipulate the blockchain. There’s a reason why “rug pulls” are so common, it’s because it’s easy to fleece people trying to make a quick buck on a trend. And tools wouldn’t help you here. There is nothing to guarantee whether an NFT is worth your money besides praying that the entity minting the NFT won’t rip you off afterwards.
I mean… thanks for admitting that Meshpage is about as useful and meaningful as an NFT, I guess, and just as much of a scam begging for a sucker to pay large amounts of money for nothing of value.
NFT marketing and manifestos often promise a lot of things, including making their own animated series or MMORPG or running their own casino. And most of those rarely get delivered within the very short time frame they’ve claimed. This… is not a surprise to anyone who’s been observing the pump and dump methodologies. But going back to Meshpage, your marketing strategies for promoting your own software have been… incredibly lackluster. So it’s not surprising you’ve failed on that end, too.
Re: Re: Re:15
It’s this nft:
https://rarible.com/token/0xb66a603f4cfe17e3d27b87a8bfcad319856518b8:63044780828468072905070356195984022355064566916094515504044574280832472055809?tab=owners
You can actually purchase it, if you want to take a risk that I ripoff the purchasers and take the money without providing anything valuable as a return mail.
Re: Re: Re:16
Why the fuck would I buy something from you, when you’ve explicitly said that there is a non-zero risk of you scamming me? You’re really not very good at this.
Re: Re: Re:4 Goddamn you are dumb
“The whole idea of copyright law is to get money flowing from users towards the original authors of the material.”
According to that idea death of the author ends copyright. Might want to tell Disney that bro.
Re: Re: Re:
Remember, Tero’s the guy who said that an artist shouldn’t be allowed to publish his reinterpretation of a subway map, because – in his own understanding – subway profits primarily rely on map sales and selling map of a subway you didn’t personally pay money to build steals that money.
Which is why catching him out on him not only using a pirated 3D model from a third-party asset pack he purchased, but also insisting he shouldn’t be held liable under his own terms of “stricter copyright law”, while defending organ harvesting and suing grandmas to pay for copyright settlement bills, is so satisfying. When you get down to it, all copyright fanatics are deeply twisted, greedy, and hypocritical to the extreme.
Re: Re:
It’s Tero. He’s the poster child for “I hate that fair use exists”. Also not forgetting he has a vested interest in preventing people from reviewing because it’d mean people realizing that Meshpage is a steaming pile of horseshit.
Re: Re: Re:
He trolls so hard on this site, that I think Meshpages is a gigantic troll.
Re: Re: Re:2
To be fair to Tero Pukeface, he does have one thing over John Smith – Tero actually has something to show unlike John Smith/Nah’s constant bitching about how he’s going to rape this website with a lawsuit. On the other hand, Tero did not have a high bar to clear.
I’ll accept that Meshpage is at best a passion project by someone who was tangentially involved with a mobile phone operating system that is no longer commonly used. For some reason instead of leveraging that, he’s decided that the best thing to do is to go it alone, decry the idea of having a development team, insult everyone older than a child for being too stupid to use his revolutionary technology, then scream at everyone for not throwing money at him. I suspect Tero hangs out here because if this was on any other website, he’d be laughed at so hard he’d keel over from embarrassment.
Re: Re: Re:3
I thought the site name is “techdirt”, so only dirty technology folks hang around here. Maybe I just want the community to dig all the dirt, so that I can take the next level in my career and sue the bastards who made youtube videos out of my work but forgot to remove the “cracked by hoodlum” labels from the video.
Re: Re: Re:4
On the contrary. Scams and fraud when it comes to tech and intellectual property get reported on here. If you ever choose to rape a grandmother in the name of copyright I’m sure a feature article will be written about you.
Nobody is using Meshpage. Nobody is pirating Meshpage. Those pirated YouTube videos you claim exist of your work do not exist. If they did, you’d show them.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
That’s why I posted meshpage here, so that you can dig through the scam/fraud potential of the technology.
Re: Re: Re:6 Fucking delusional you are
Ain’t no one doing your work for free bro.
Re: Re: Re:6
The fraud is that the creator of a piece of user-unfriendly bloatware thinks that his intellectual self-masturbation for ten years entitles him to rape, plunder, and harvest the organs of every other person on the planet.
Re: Re: Re:6
Two things:
Re: Re: Re:7
The biggest opportunity for Meshpage to commit fraud is for Tero to upload a copy onto the Pirate Bay and attempt to sue anyone who’s dumb enough to download it.
Of course, that strategy got the genius minds at Prenda Law arrested.
Re: Re: Re:8
I think you missed the big fraud potential. Did you even check the bird that I posted earlier? http://meshpage.org/427 It’s clearly big wire fraud potential given that I didn’t create the animation data myself. But the web page hides the source data behind impenetrable security feature, so noone would be wiser about the fraud potential until it is too late.
Re: Re: Re:9
You mean the fact that you promised Meshpage would stop all potential copyright infringement but failed to prevent you, its creator, from infringing on the copyrights of Scott Cawthon’s Five Nights at Freddy’s series?
Re: Re: Re:10
You’ve yourself claimed that even detecting all copyright infringement is next to impossible, much less stopping/preventing it. Now you claim that meshpage needs to do the impossible.
You should get your story straight.
I never said meshpage can stop all copyright infringement. For example, I have no power to stop pirate bay from operating in their country-jumping server setup. Basically since pirate bay is not using the copyrighted works that I created, I simply do not have power to stop their operation.
Thus stopping all copyright infringement is simply impossible. The real promise is that “government” eventually gets it done, and meshpage is one step toward the correct direction.
type checking is a great process. It can find errors from software. Our approach uses type checking to check for copyright problems. So it can find errors. But fixing the compiler errors still remains a task that actual humans need to do, even though they get significant help from compilers. Thus there’s a gap in the process where copyright infringement can exit when humans have not yet fixed the errors that these computer systems have found. The promise is “eventually always”, i.e. there is some point in time after which the specific infringements have been cured and they don’t keep reappearing. I.e. the staydown requirement has been implemented. But of course new development is able to create new instances of copyright infringement. Just need to ensure that “eventually always” requirement has been fullfilled for those new instances too.
Re: Re: Re:11
You’re the one who claimed Meshpage would do the impossible—we have your commenting history, remember?—then promptly proved why it would never be able to do the by way of ripping off Scott Cawthon.
You did, however, claim Meshpage could stop any and all potential copyright infringement that people would/could use Meshpage to carry out. Then you undermined your own claim by way of ripping off Scott Cawthon.
You literally promised that Meshpage, in its current state, would be able to stop anyone and everyone from using Meshpage for copyright infringement. Then you proved how bullshit that promise was by way of ripping off Scott Cawthon.
Re: Re: Re:12
well, yes, 2^(256256) is such large number that it’s impossible to enumerate all possible values between 0 and 2^(256256). This makes enumeration impossible. But this is just black-and-white image with size 256×256, and enumeration of all possibilities are just not needed for it. Most of the enumerated images would anyway be just random static and those are not really needed. When we choose just the reasonable combinations, things like web browsers can use images without ever enumerating all the possible values. This is what it means to implement an impossible. You simply avoid the problem that makes it impossible and you get awesome technology as a result. You simply cannot claim that web browsers are impossible to create, even though 2^(256*256) is such large number that finding its decimal representation might be too much work before the heat death of the universe.
Copyright detection, checking and enforcement isn’t any different. You just need to avoid the pieces which you consider impossible and then implement the technology with the remaining lego blocks. You have used legos, right?
Re: Re: Re:13
“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” (Cardinal Armand Jean du Plessis, Duke of Richelieu and Fronsac)
To put that into a context for this discussion: Anyone can write six lines of rhetoric or dialogue or whatever. But how many of those lines might infringe on a copyrighted story from anywhere in the world at any time where a story can be covered by copyright? Sure, quoting Shakespeare is no big deal (dude’s works have been in the public domain for as long as everyone alive right now has been alive), but what if someone happens to quote something, no matter how miniscule, that was also written by David Foster Wallace or Cormac McCarthy or Rebecca Solnit? If even one line of the six they write can be found in the copyrighted work of another author—no matter how small the line—under your copyright extremism, wouldn’t the writer of those six lines be guilty of copyright infringement and thus subject to the same punishments you would want inflicted upon someone who downloads a copy of a movie?
If you were given six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, would you be willing to hang that man (metaphorically or literally) if you found something in those six lines that infringed on any copyrighted work anywhere in the world regardless of the age or obscurity of the work?
Re: Re: Re:14
This does not matter one bit. The prove copyright infringement, you need to prove that the author of the material had access to the original work. Without this “access” there cannot be copyright infringement. No access is good defense against all claims of copyright infringement, even without evaluating the actual contents of the copyrighted work.
There’s another slightly bigger issue. If english has about 2000 words that you can choose, and if there’s 6 words in it, there’s 2000^6=64000000000000000000 different alternatives. To infringe the copyright, you need to pick the exactly one of those alternatives. It is very unlikely that you’d pick the same set of words than what was contained in the original. This simply cannot happen accidentally, it’s less likely than winning jackpot in the lottery.
For larger pieces of text, the math simply blows up completely. If you claim that you accidentally bumped into someone elses copyrighted words, I simply do not believe it. There has to be some communication link between the two works if they use exactly the same words. Maybe they showed the work in tv 2 years ago or something, but it cannot happen accidentally.
The access defense still holds. Even if you bumped into same keywords, and it is guaranteed by the above math that there is communication link between the copyright works, author not knowing what the connection is, is a valid defense against claims of copyright infringement. T
his is how strict copyrights are giving better defense against claims of copyright infringement.
Re: Re: Re:15
No you don’t. You ripped off Scott Cawthon and you didn’t even know about him or the Five Night’s at Freddy’s game franchise—one of the most successful indie game franchises of the past decade!—until I told you that you ripped him off.
I didn’t say “six words”, I said “six lines”. “He yelled at me” can be a line. So can “I do” and “I’m the best there is at what I do, and what I do isn’t pretty”. Also: English has way more than 2,000 words in it.
The chances of even one of six lines being identical to one in a copyrighted English-language work published at any time between the 1st of January 1927 and now depends on a lot of factors. How long is the line? How many common words does it use? How common are any phrases in the line, such that they may be common utterances from any period of time in the copyright window?
Under your proposed extra-strict copyright laws, even a bit of standalone dialogue as simple as “I do” could be considered copyright infringement if it appears in at least one other copyrighted work. Under your proposed copyright law, if anyone has ever used “I do” in a copyrighted work as far back as the 1st of January 1927, anyone who uses the phrase in any work after that one is guilty of copyright infringement. And as you love to point out, any amount of copyright infringement should be treated as theft of the entire work—which means the “thief” should be punished by either heavy fines, jail time, execution, or any combination thereof.
If you wish to refute your own beliefs, now would be the time to do so.
Re: Re: Re:16
Yes, this is a good defense to claims of copyright infringement.
I simply haven’t followed what games are available since 1994 when my first commercial game was released. That was big enough event that I stopped playing games and focused on creating them instead.
Re: Re: Re:17
No, it isn’t. Ignorance of the law is often not enough of a defense or a proof of innocence.
You might argue that independent creation or accidental infringement is a thing, but such a situation would not be allowed under stricter copyright law, which you want the whole world to follow.
Even in the extremely unlikely scenario where that is true, this would still not be a defense against accusations of copyright infringement. Prenda Law and Malibu Media have sued plenty of grandparents despite said old people never having heard of them or consume pornography on a regular basis.
That said, those copyright enforcement strategies were what got Prenda Law arrested and Malibu Media fined, so… the best conclusion anyone can have is that obeying stricter copyright laws gets you arrested, not the other way around.
Re: Re: Re:18
I think you’re mischaracterizing the situation. Not knowing about some random author other side of the globe isn’t really “ignorance of the laws”
Re: Re: Re:19
There’s been plenty of copyright cases brought by small, unknown authors claiming that other authors or companies infringed on their copyright on vague concepts. J.K. Rowling was accused of committing copyright infringement on another author’s vague ideas of a magic school. Ubisoft was sued by a random author because the Assassin’s Creed franchise relied on the concept of genetic ancestral memory (which is, in itself, a concept that appears frequently enough in fiction that it can’t be copyrighted.)
So, no, the situation isn’t being mischaracterized.
Re: Re: Re:20
sure, but all these lawsuits kinda failed and the plaintiffs are paying the lawyer’s fees.
Re: Re: Re:21
But under stricter copyright laws, they wouldn’t have. Because that’s all stricter copyright laws rely on: baseless accusations with flimsy to no evidence whatsoever.
Re: Re: Re:22
strict copyright laws also rely on one important property: the existence of pirate/criminal organisations that are taking away markets from ordinary authors.
The existence of these criminal organisations is based on solid facts, and can be easily checked/verified.
Re: Re: Re:23
That these organizations exist is not permission for you to rape the public for money you think you are owed.
The RIAA and MPA spent over a decade trying to do it, screwing over their own reputation and failing to make a single dent in the operations of their opponents.
A single lunatic from Finland is not going to succeed where they failed.
Re: Re: Re:13
The RIAA response to that would be to tell you to “nerd harder”. The fact that they want you to go through an impossible amount of data is entirely intended.
Re: Re: Re:14
this only comes from the fact that the pirates promised to be able to create thousands of blockbuster movies and aaa-games all by themselves. when they pirated the material and offered tje products to pirate site customers, they implicitly promised to create something twice as large as their current pirate site. This inevitavly goes to handling impossible amounts of data and illegal market failures when the pirates cannot fulfill their promises.
Re: Re: Re:15
No promise of “creation” happened, and there’s no “offering” of products. What pirates do is little more than a library lending out intangible copies of files to anyone who wants one. You can argue that this is illegal, and the law would agree with you, but blaming pirates for having “too much data” is a shit excuse. It’s the equivalent of claiming that a town where a criminal lives has too many people so you should be allowed to murder everyone who lives there.
Re: Re: Re:9
That is not wire fraud. Though it would be funny as shit if you got arrested for your 3D animations of very dubious quality.
Re: Re: Re:10
The animations are based on existing established standards for 3d model trasfer formats, i.e. gltf. You should take your complaints to the standardisation organisation, I will wash my hands from the quarrel you have with the animation quality. HINT: even blender supports the exact same standard, so the path from blender to gameapi builder works just fine and the tool can render all the files that blender can generate.
Re: Re: Re:11
Ergo, Meshpage does not have the potential for wire fraud. Contrary to what you claimed above:
Now, I said that it would be funny if you were arrested on charges of fraud based on your animations. I highly doubt it would happen. But I would still find it hilarious.
That your software actually works at a barebones level is not the crowning achievement you think we should suck your cock for. You’ve proven that your tool can render files from somewhere else, which is how you infringed on Scott Cawthon’s copyright. That much was never in question.
Re: Re: Re:12
It actually is. The reason is that standard file formats are very tricky with copyrights. The whole market assumes that you’re supporting standard file formats. It started with mp3 files which were pirated like hell as the result of using standard file formats. Then mp4 provided movie piracy via converting hollywood movies to standard file formats. Thus the feature “standard file formats” is completely broken copyright-wise.
While I also support some standard file formats, my support for that feature has significant limitations:
1) I do not support mp4 movie/video files, because they are too hot commodity and leads to piracy in an instant.
2) I only support file formats where significant piracy communities are not existing. 3d models are pretty good for that.
3) jpg/png/gif files are significant piracy source, but they’re already established and common technology, so one project rejecting their use wouldn’t change the situation with piracy one bit.
4) my technology is inventing significant amount of custom file formats and techniques that are available nowhere else. While it cannot enjoy compability with existing content on internet, these custom file format requirements will force end users to create the content from scratch instead of cloning someone elses work. There simply isn’t available existing files that can be used.
Re: Re: Re:13
This entire paragraph doesn’t have any significance. The fact that Hollywood used certain file formats that became used widespread by people who happened to be pirates doesn’t mean there is an issue with using certain file formats. Your claim is the equivalent of saying that food needs to be altered, outlawed or made less accessible by the average person, because murderers and rapists have the ability to eat.
You claim this about image formats, but the truth is the same applies to video and audio files.
So are you or are you not compatible with Blender? You can’t even stay consistent within your own narrative. It’s no surprise nobody wants to use your software.
Re: Re: Re:14
I can be simultaniously compatible with blender and also require that users fill in data in proprietary formats. Those are not excluding each other. Blender support might be needed for compability with existing files from the internet, but custom file formats are needed to prove that the authors of the content actually created something themselves instead of just cloning someone elses work.
Re: Re: Re:15
What you’re doing is nothing more than the equivalent of opening a JPG file in Photoshop and saving it as a PNG. Once a user realizes that their Blender file has been converted into a useless Terop-approved file format, they’ll lose interest in your software very quickly.
Re: Re: Re:16
This simply never happens. I don’t support saving of the content. It can only be loaded and displayed. There’s no saving supported. So their blender file never gets converted to useless approved file formats.
The output of my engine is a web page that displays the 3d model. It’s not any proprietary file formats as output, because I simply don’t support saving to those formats.
Re: Re: Re:17
So you lock your users into only using one sort of file format that can’t even be exported or used anywhere else. And for some inexplicable, copyright-worshipping reason, you think this is a good thing.
As someone who actually works in a field reliant on design and editing tools, I can tell you that not being able to have a functioning working file is impossible to work with. And I’m not the only one. Anyone working in this field would tell you the same thing. You’ve done nothing more than make a glorified display mechanism – intentionally, since you’ve boasted that you don’t have any core functionality.
None of what you’ve done is revolutionary for a 3D artist who wants to display their artwork on a personal portfolio website. This is not technology any government will pay you millions of dollars for.
Re: Re: Re:18
traditionally the only output devices that 3d artists on the web are able to use are png and jpeg files, which are kinda static and does not convey the movement accurately to the users.
instead meshpage allows the actual moving 3d object to be placed to a web page.
Re: Re: Re:19
This would be notable if you hadn’t already admitted that the tech involved resulted in so many memory leaks and data inefficiencies, only the most advanced rigs would be able to parse your software. At best, you’ve managed to come up with a graphic implementation so cumbersome and taxing, nobody would use it.
Re: Re: Re:4 How many years you been posting here?
so that I can take the next level in my career and sue the bastards who made youtube videos…’
How’s that working out for you bro?
Re: Re: Re:5
First he has to find a YouTube video that isn’t the joke he created and calls a tech demo.
Re: Re: Re:5
pretty ok. the employers in my area is beginning to recognize my talents in copyright trolling and I’ll soon be a member of large company that created opengl 3d graphics for real customers.
Re: Re: Re:6
Well, none of that will be remotely relevant, considering you hate other people and hate working with other people.
Considering all you’ve done is bitch and piss and moan on a website you believe most of Europe doesn’t even read, I don’t imagine any employer is going to pay you to shitpost on a website. Unless you’re applying for a career at one of those Eastern European disinformation farms, in which case you’re still doing a very lackluster job.
Re: Re: Re:7
I’ll also make Putin to pay for it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Mate, Putin can’t even properly pay his own countrymen to fight a war in his name. If you can’t get the government of Finland to suck your cock, the government of Russia isn’t going to fellate you.
Re:
Good thing no one else lives in TP Fantasy Land.
Re: Re:
There’s new animation available in the fantasy land:
https://meshpage.org/427
(c-key will activate the animation and mouse will zoom/rotate the model)
Re: Re: Re:
Why would anyone care, since Meshpage has no users?
Re: Re: Re:2
For the awesome new content? Isn’t that why you keep returning to pirate sites anyway to get premium content to your doorstep? I’m just offering the same service, but without the legal problems.
Re: Re: Re:3
People go to pirate sites to find content they want, not content you want to force upon other people. If someone chooses to torrent Morbius over your Meshpage content, that says more about your content than it will ever say about the Morbhead.
Re: Re: Re:4
They haven’t even seen the content I have available, so they have no bits to place their critique on my content.
It is understandable that they cannot browse through all alternative sources of content, but at least they should ensure that the sources that they use, are actually legal.
Re: Re: Re:5
If nobody wants to look at your shit, that isn’t anyone’s problem but yours.
Re: Re: Re:6
If they look at pirate content instead, I expect the criminals be sued out of oblivion. Basically ordinary authors can take only certain amount of beating before the quota overflows. There’s only certain accepted ways to avoid my content, and visiting pirate sites isn’t one of them. If they want to avoid my content, they should at least license those replacing materials with valid market price. This would be a very fair requirement.
Re: Re: Re:7
I can go to itch.io right now and legally download any number of games, books, comics, and other materials without paying a dime. Sturgeon’s Law being what it is, 90% of what I can download would probably be awful. But if that still seems like a more attractive proposition when compared to looking at your bullshit, that isn’t anyone’s problem but yours.
Re: Re: Re:8
Once we get users to use legal content sources, the next step is gradually increase the prices until the cost of producing the material matches the prices available in legal download sites. This is called inflation, and the economy wizards are telling us that inflation is increasing all the time. So the price increases are actually happening.
Re: Re: Re:9
Yes or no: Should the law to force artists and content creators into offering copies of their works for a price?
That’s because greedy dipshit capitalists keep trying to make all the money instead of being content with making some of the money. But I suppose now you’re going to tell me that Elon Musk being a billionaire and hoarding all his money like a fucking Tolkein dragon is more important than Musk paying a living wage to the people who actually keep Tesla running as a company (i.e., the factory workers who assemble the cars his company sells).
Re: Re: Re:10
Again, it’s not the law that does this. It’s the inflation. When prices of products increase, anyone who does not have valid sources of income are going to run out of money. Thus everyone in the market need to offer their work for some money amount larger than zero, depending on how they think gets them the biggest payout. While the law doesn’t say anything about pricing of the products, it’s the general price increases all over the market that forces authors to offer their products for a price larger than zero. This happens everywhere at the same time, when inflation speed is increasing.
Re: Re: Re:11
Again: I can go to itch.io right now and download plenty of works without paying a single cent. Inflation can’t control whether artists and content creators choose to give away or sell copies of their works.
Yeah, and when people can’t afford to live on the meager paychecks offered by their employers, do you think the CEOs and the executives will start slinging burgers and ringing up people at registers and packing boxes full of stuff and doing all the work that keeps companies afloat? Do you think people not buying things because they can’t afford to buy those things because they’ve been bankrupted (or come damn close to it) by the cost of merely being able to survive will make those same executives reconsider raising the wages of their workers because otherwise those executives will see their profits drop even worse?
And yet, plenty of artists and content creators offer their works for no cost. Maybe they have other forms of income, maybe they do commissions, maybe they use Patreon as a tip jar—how they make their money is ultimately irrelevant.
Yes or no: Do you believe the law should force artists and content creators to offer copies of their works for a price?
Re: Re: Re:11
Nobody disputes that. You’re free to price your products however you want. And when you price your products more than a person can afford on top of their daily expenses – which are also rising in cost due to inflation – who do you think is going to buy your expensive bloatware? Nobody is. You can break into someone’s house and threaten to murder them for not using Meshpage and it still won’t convince them.
Re: Re: Re:11
You didn’t answer the question.
Also, inflation doesn’t require people to charge for everything. If making games or whatever isn’t meant to be a source of income but just a hobby, no amount of inflation would cause them to charge for their products. And inflation is multiplicative, not additive. It increases prices by a percentage of the original. Anything timed zero is still zero, so no matter how high inflation gets, it alone will never increase the price of something free.
And, actually, inflation is not the cause of increased prices; it’s just the phenomenon of prices increasing over time itself. While, in extreme cases, inflation can be a self-feeding loop, generally, inflation doesn’t cause anyone to change their prices. Something else caused the inflation, which is itself the increase in prices. Saying “prices will increase because of inflation” is like saying “the universe is growing because of expansion.” You’re just saying the same thing in different words, not actually offering a mechanism for it.
Re: Re: Re:12
There’s just one thing: all activity that does not generate income will eventually stop. This is guaranteed by the government. So either these game developers need to find ways to turn their hobby into income generating money sources, or the activity will just stop. It might take a while for that to happen, but the society will lose all these games. The sustainability of the game development process relies on obtaining always new suckers to do game development, i.e. it has the same problem than what ponzi scheme has: it is not sustainable over long timescales and the existence of the community is only possible because new people are constantly trying their luck in game development. Once this source of developers disappear for some reason, maybe they move to quantum computers which do not allow games, and the game development activity will just stop and world loses the whole technology area.
Re: Re: Re:13
How? The government doesn’t get to dictate whether someone who creates an original work must sell copies of that work. Plenty of people in plenty of countries bound by the Berne Convention give away what would nominally be copyrighted works, and the governments of those countries aren’t telling those people “sell your works or else”. You don’t get to tell those people that, either.
…fucking what
ahaha, you think PC gaming will end when quantum computers become a widespread thing
you are out of your goddamned fucking mind
Re: Re: Re:13
What? No, it absolutely will not.
No, it absolutely is not.
Or they will continue making games for fun in their spare time. Not every single thing has to have a profit motive.
Sure, but only because the duration of life will end eventually.
You clearly don’t understand hobbies, games, or Ponzi schemes.
Maybe you can’t understand this because you have never done so, but some people have pet projects they work on in their spare time as a hobby. They don’t ever plan on selling it, but showing it off is perfectly normal, which includes offering it for free. Again, people do things for fun rather than money and always will.
This is far from a guaranteed thing, and you’ve offered no evidence to support this or any of your assertions.
My understanding of quantum computers is somewhat limited, but I highly doubt that they won’t allow games. The first video game ever made used an oscilloscope to operate.
I seriously have to ask where the hell you get these ideas. No, no it won’t, at least not within the lifetimes of the generation after the current youngest one, and that would require something pretty catastrophic.
Re: Re: Re:13
If your business does not generate income, eventually it stops when you run out of money to continue operations. The government has nothing to do with this. The fact that Meshpage has continued development despite making only $48 over 10 years – by your own admission – proves this. Unless you’re claiming that $4.80 a year is enough to sustain Meshpage’s development, in which case I have to ask, why does the government need to give you money? Why does the government need to promise you anything, if a lack of money has clearly not stopped you?
It sounds like you binged a few Josh Strife Hayes videos on YouTube and ended up returning some of the main points he covers in MMORPG development. And having known people from university who tried to go into game development, and most of them aren’t in that industry now, it’s a very stressful industry. You will, though, always have people trying to make it big in there. But that’s the same in every industry that’s marketed as the next big thing. Is it sustainable or healthy? Probably not. But none of that suddenly means that Meshpage is going to be the solution. None of that means that copyright law is going to be the savior that makes all the problems of toxic development practices go away.
This is rich coming from you, considering one of your boasts was signing an NDA with a game publisher to develop a game using Meshpage, after seven years of negotiations. And that claim was made by you at least half a year ago. If you think game development is such a terrible, scummy, scammy industry, why are you trying this hard to get into it? Why are you trying to be, as you put it, a “new sucker”?
Re: Re: Re:14
I just happened to spend all my life creating games. What you learn when you’re young, you will master when you’re older. And since I learned game development when I was 13 years old, now that I’m 47 years old, I’m already mastering the activities.
And it’s not “trying to get into the industry”, it’s more like “I have my own projects which are being constantly developed”.
Re: Re: Re:15
you’ve “mastered the activities” but you haven’t made a game people want to play – that’s sad, you’re a sad person
Re: Re: Re:16
I can use my amiga game to prove you wrong. Here’s a proof that people want to play it, even in 2022:
https://www.lemonamiga.com/games/votes_list.php?genre_id=4&worst=true
its number 39 in the list, so it isn’t even worst of the worst.
Re: Re: Re:17
That you see your game being on that list as a good thing is…well, it’s beyond pathetic, Tero. Get some help.
Re: Re: Re:17
Let’s assume, for the benefit of the doubt, that people actually want to play games on a list called “Worst 66 Amiga Brain Games” – this was in 1994. None of that proves you’re a master at this, or disproves your claim that the industry is reliant on suckers. If anything, the fact that you claim to be part of such an industry means that you consider yourself a sucker, and not in any sort of good way.
Funnily enough, searching “Black Legend” – the developer and publisher for that game – with your name – does bring up a few Google links. Lemon Amiga itself does attribute “Tero Pulkinnen” to Mega Motion, and curiously enough, also mentions an “Esa Pulkinnen” as a “miscellaneous artist” on the Hall of Light Amiga Database. I even found a resume dating all the way back to 2012.
Notably, none of this history is even brought up. For all your huff and puff and desire to be taken seriously, the fact that I had to do this amount of homework is pretty ridiculous. The only reason why any of this information is coming to light, like your previous work history with Black Legend – which isn’t even on your resume – is because you’re such an obnoxious tool your claims have to be verified, since nobody takes your word for it. You scuppered your own reputation.
Even still, the idea that people still want to play a game from 1994 isn’t helpful to your argument at all. You’ve claimed on multiple occasions that support for older work needs to be phased out, so new competing products can actually be seen in the market. Promoting your previous work contradicts that. For that matter, the fact that those games still exist on ROM sites is a problem, because you’ve insisted on multiple occasions that ROM sites are illegal and should be destroyed.
And this is all on top of the fact that even if you were a coder for a game developer that made a few notable products several decades ago… none of that is justification for why the government needs to pay you several million dollars for the development of Meshpage. None of that justifies why the government has to adopt widespread usage of your software. Hell, you’d probably make more money trying to sue Lemon Amiga for being a ROM site. You keep wanting to promote yourself, Tero, but refuse to show anything besides your slavish devotion to the RIAA. None of that is a reason to give you money.
Re: Re: Re:18
Of course its in the resume. it clearly states: “Mega Motion — released by Black Legend UK ltd.”
That’s all that is needed from the project.
Re: Re: Re:19
As of writing the URL appears to be broken – so the best that can be surmised from this is you finally remembered how to take down a file. Congratulations. There was nothing of the sort on the original PDF since all you boasted there was your work with phone operating systems. Cute, but again – nothing that actually convinces people why Meshpage is worth investing time in as a user.
Re: Re: Re:9
And when inflation hits, what do you think ordinary people will be spending their shrinking budgets on? Food, shelter and clothing, or prostitute money for an old has-been from Finland who’s completely full of himself? The government is not going to outlaw spending money on basic needs because you don’t feel rich enough, Tero.
Re: Re: Re:10
If you sell your content with proper price, you don’t have shrinking budget, but instead you’ll just have more customers when clients will jump from product to another while trying to find the best deal.
Re: Re: Re:11
You don’t. Your potential buyers do, though. Yes, you can control the price of your own product, but you can’t do that for everything. And when people who don’t have money to spare (and there’s a lot of them in this world) must decide between the essentials (food, rent, utilities) over the luxuries (movies, books, music, hobbies, etc.) as the cost for both the essentials and the luxuries rise due to capitalist greed—because companies want to make even more profits than they did last year because capitalism demands infinite “Line Goes Up” growth forever and ever—people will choose the essentials every time.
Not that you seem to care, given how you think the government should pay you an untold (but assumedly more than six figures) sum of money for the fact that you created something that nobody uses, looks at, or cares about in the same way people watch movies, read books, or plays video games. News flash, Tero: Nobody in this entire world owes you a single goddamned thing only because you made something you can copyright.
Yes or no: Do you believe the law should force artists and content creators to offer copies of their works for a price?
Re: Re: Re:11
Considering that your main gripe is working on Meshpage for 10 years but only making $48 out of it (of which $46 was teaching a programming language, mind you, and not actually relevant to Meshpage being used), clearly even “free to download” isn’t enough for your bloatware.
And the original rhetorical question wasn’t about your budget. If an average person is already struggling to put food on the table, they’re not going to spend $46 just so Tero Pulkinnen can sexually harass them for a few hours.
You’ve had 10 years waiting for clients to jump to you, Tero. I think it’s fair to say that Meshpage has been nothing short of a whopping, resounding failure.
Re: Re: Re:12
meshpage project is already a success when the technology becomes ready for customers to use it. Since I’ve made constant releases which customers are able to download on my web page, meshpage project is astounding success project.
It’s only governments lagginess that the compensation does not appear for all success projects.
Re: Re: Re:13
Are you admitting, here and now, that Meshpage don’t have customers because the technology isn’t ready for everyday use?
And yet, you yourself admit that no one uses Meshpage, whereas a significant amount of people use Blender and its well-known competitors. When you can’t convince anyone to use your shit, releasing new versions of that shit isn’t the kind of success you want others to think it is.
The government doesn’t owe you (or anyone else) anything beyond a copyright only because you created something that could be copyrighted. People write books, record songs, make games, and create all kinds of works that could be copyrighted—and yet, the government doesn’t (and shouldn’t!) pay them a single dime for the fact that they created such works.
Re: Re: Re:14
This isn’t true. When author’s copyright story fails for some reason, those people need to apply unemployment benefit instead. When govt sees that authors who already worked hard need to rely on govt handouts, they should detect that market failure is ongoing. If this happens regularly, they need to fix the situation by tracking the pirates and improving the market conditions for those authors.
Re: Re: Re:15
What the fuck do you want the government to do about someone writing a book that no one wants to buy?
You could snap every pirate site out of existence right now and it wouldn’t make people spend more money on movies, books, etc. Putting something on the market is no guarantee of financial success regardless of the existence of piracy.
Copyright shouldn’t be a welfare system. The government shouldn’t go around giving people thousands or millions of dollars in compensation only for not being able to sell their work. And anyone who fails at being a commercially successful artist/content creator can go get a fucking job like every other regular jackoff.
Re: Re: Re:16
Therein lies the problem that most normal people have – copyright isn’t a welfare system, but between the lavish lifestyles of celebrities, and the RIAA suing the shit out of everybody, copyright as a moneymaking tool to cover for business failures has been a thing for quite a while. Look at Colette Pelissier’s meltdown for having to pay $108k for suing the wrong person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glpGcr-loqQ
Re: Re: Re:16
Government have plenty of options in this situation:
1) they could give government backed loans to publishers for use in publishing author’s works
2) they could try to fix the market failure, i.e. setup some organisation that gets a little govt money and has a task to raise the money level for all the authors in the market failure
3) they could review author’s works and pass them to companies that handle publishing those works
4) they could give money perks for companies to hire the authors
5) they could ensure that whoever currently has money nearby, will pass it to the author’s direction instead of keeping it idle in the bank account
6) they could ensure that authors without necessary funds do not lose their apartments or cars for lack of money
7) they could find more viable market for the book
8) they could give direct funding to the authors
9) they could help book author move to different tech area
10) they could help author move the book contents to web, audio books, interactive multimedia presentations, games, movies or other more modern technologies
see, govt has wide range of possible alternative stuff they could do…
Re: Re: Re:17
…oh, you dumb bitch.
For what reason should the government give money to a publisher for that purpose if the publisher can’t raise the money itself? That sounds a lot like you want the government to control the means of production.
For what reason should the government be interfering in capitalist business by essentially rewarding someone for failing to sell copies of a book they wrote? The government doesn’t bail out other failed capitalist businesses only because those businesses failed to sell their products.
For what reason does the government need to get involved with that process? Publishers of all sizes already have review processes for potential acquisitions. Literary agents also help with this.
For what reason should the government be interfering in capitalist business by giving money to publishers for the sake of hiring an author they wouldn’t have hired otherwise? The government doesn’t reward other businesses for hiring people who don’t actually help said businesses.
That’s fucking theft, you idiot. You’re literally advocating for the government to steal money from people for no reason other than to reward a failed author for their failure.
If the government can/should do that for failed authors, for what reason can’t/shouldn’t they do that for literally anyone else? I don’t see you advocating for the government to give the average homeless person tens of thousands of dollars for the purpose of buying a home.
For what reason should the government be doing the job of a book publisher or a literary agent? (And by the by, the most viable market for a book is typically the country of origin for a given author.)
For what reason should the government directly fund authors if those authors can’t hack it as writers? Failed authors can go get a fucking job like everyone else; they shouldn’t be getting money from the government only because they failed to write something that mass numbers of people wanted to read.
For what reason should the government use its resources to help someone move, whether within or outside of the country? It doesn’t help homeless people who weren’t authors move into homes or pay their mortgages or whatever; I don’t see why failed authors should get any better treatment than anyone else.
For what reason should the government be doing any of that? Publishers do that. Editors do that. Authors do that. The government shouldn’t be doing any of that unless you believe the government should seize and control the means of…production…
…holy shit you really are a fucking communist
Re: Re: Re:18
putin’s russia is less than 100km away…
Re: Re: Re:19
JFC, you’re a communist and a Putin ass-kisser
shut the fuck up forever, you fucking fascist
Re: Re: Re:20
Tero has claimed while signed in that the Russian-Ukraine war was in the name of copyright. So… not really a surprise. Tero will justify murder and rape in the name of copyright every day, any day.
Re: Re: Re:13
Re: Re: Re:7
Sure, if not for the fact that your track record of actually suing the right people was absolutely pathetic.
Or they could not visit your webpage at all. Or they could go outside and touch grass.
As much as you pray for it, not using Meshpage will never be against the law.
Re: Re: Re:3
And you don’t have premium content. Or content anyone would want, in any case. For that matter, making sure that you have no users at all is a part of your business model. By your own admission. So why should I visit?
Re: Re: Re:4
I understand that hollywood’s studios can create better content than individual programmers from finland. And the pirate site offers content from all possible hollywood studios, and thus competing against the pirate sites is a losing proposition. But this is exactly why copyright needs to become stricter, so that the illegal vendors of someone else content can be filtered out and all customers moved to legal services. The premium keyword cannot be used only for illegal content. Individual programmers need to have opportunity to create such magic. It’s not only popular content that gets copyright protection, but all content has opportunity to become premium.
Re: Re: Re:5
Dude, people doing Blender and SFM porn animations on Patreon can create better content than you. Use Meshpage to render a scene of Aerith Gainsborough getting plowed by Cloud Strife with a level of quality beyond “stick figures”, and maybe I’ll begin to care about your bullshit.
Your shit would also have to compete with legal content made by independent artists and published on a host of other sites, including (but not limited to) YouTube, DeviantArt, ArtStation, itch.io, and Patreon. And that doesn’t get into streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu. And let’s not forget physical media such as books, DVDs/Blu-rays, and CDs/vinyl albums; video games of all kinds; and people’s own desires to draw and sing and play music and create stuff that doesn’t need Meshpage to enable their creativity.
You could shut down all the pirate sites tomorrow with a Thanos-like snap and people still wouldn’t use Meshpage. Eliminating “illegal” competition won’t do away with the legal competition for people’s time (and money). And since you can’t eliminate all that competition…well, you’re fucked.
They (you) already have that opportunity. If they (you) can’t break through to commercial success with their works, that’s their (your) problem.
Copyright protection offers no guarantee of financial success. I’m pretty sure Sony copyrighted Morbius, and that film bombed—twice!
Re: Re: Re:6
If people will spraypaint the local buildings instead of using meshpage, then we would blame the parents of those people, who couldn’t properly give information to the younglings about what is expected from them. I know many of the youngsters will turn criminal during the teen years, but that sounds like a failure of the content industry if young people choose illegal techniques instead of trying to find their way out of the illegal area. Content industry should look into the mirror if they cannot provide enough content and further paths to actually creating copyrighted works.
Re: Re: Re:7
It’s been explained to you multiple times, but here it is again: there are other options besides using Meshpage and committing acts of graffiti. To wit, nobody is using Meshpage right now, and not everyone on the planet is a spraypainter.
Ah, don’t lie to yourself Tero. You’ve never once believed that the content industry is to blame for anything.
Re: Re: Re:8
This would otherwise be true, but it happens to be that content industry’s main purpose is to remove boredness from humans. If people get too bored, they start finding things to do, and end up pirating movies or spraypainting buildings. It’s the task of content industry to fix this issue. there’s noone else to blame for this than content industry. If they cannot solve this, noone can.
Re: Re: Re:9
Once again: contrary to what you believe, the world is not divided exclusively between using Meshpage or consuming entertainment, and committing acts of crime or vandalism. Unlike you, apparently, people do work for a living.
Re: Re: Re:10
Meshpage is meant for teenagers and younger…
Those teenagers (and younger) are still in school, i.e. they don’t work for a living yet.
When you’re designing software for some target group, you actually need to understand the world that they’re in. You simply cannot be a bully like what you tried to do, it’ll be immediately dismissed as irrelevant distraction.
Re: Re: Re:11
Your entire “understanding” of the world of children and teenagers is to use ONE blog review of Meshpage. One that insulted Meshpage. That’s not even going into the fact that you’ve insisted that you want the government of Finland to personally use your software. Last I checked, the government of Finland wasn’t being run by children.
It’s been said before. If you honestly designed Meshpage for a younger age group, you’d be better off trying to visit schools and show kids how to use Meshpage. Hell, use them as alpha and beta testers to see how they actually interact with software you claim to be designed for them. But nah, you can’t even be bothered to do that besides complain and rant about how nobody in the Finnish government worships your alleged genius with bags of money. You’d rather bitch about the $46 you made teaching human beings you hate.
Mate, I’m not the one who boasted about getting Putin to wage a war, murder people, and harvest organs in the name of copyright. If anyone’s a bully, it’s you.
Re: Re: Re:5
You keep wanting to believe that pirate sites existing is the reason why Meshpage fails, when you’re not even in the same industry. Nobody who downloads a Hollywood blockbuster off the Pirate Bay is going to think “Wow, if I had a free user-friendly 3D modeling and animation engine I wouldn’t have to download anything”.
As an example, if all you sell is steaks, you can make them as premium and expensive as you’d like, but a vegetarian person looking for a salad is not going to buy one and eat it. You can make all salads illegal and it wouldn’t change that fact.
You were the one who chose not to work with a team like you used to. That’s on you. Literally nothing would be solved even if the Pirate Bay disappeared tomorrow. Odds are, people will still prefer what Hollywood studios generate than you do.
The way copyright laws are now, you can’t even be trusted to arrest the right people. Because you openly support going after children and grandmothers and raping them until they pay up. You’re not interested in punishing pirates, just settlement money.
Re: Re: Re:6
Half of them are anyway considering if they should spent their time creating their own youtube videos. Given that they have experience with video technologies, youtube video creation role is next in line for them, after they stop doing illegal download operations.
Youtube video editing has just one big problem: google forgot to implement the tools that allow creating cool animations for the videos. All kinds of special effects are needed to match the hollywood movie quality, and without meshpage/gameapi builder, they simply cannot match hollywood’s movie effect quality.
If they just had 3d modelling and animation software, they would be transformed from passive sofa potato to actively engaging in the youtube creator community. I suspect many of the pirates would like to do the transition — they just don’t have access to the tools yet.
Re: Re: Re:7
Those people will have plenty of tools available to make their own videos. Exactly none of them will use Meshpage, no matter how hard you pray to whatever god you worship.
That’s because YouTube isn’t (necessarily) a content creation platform—it has been, and always will be, a content hosting platform first and foremost. YouTube doesn’t need to offer a fully functional 3D animation suite on the level of Blender when Blender already exists and already allows users to export video files that they can then upload to YouTube.
You’d be surprised what people can do with programs like After Effects these days. Meshpage is irrelevant in that regard because your shit would barely qualify as “mindblowing” two decades ago. The CGI in the first Golgo 13 anime film is still more impressive than anything you can do with Meshpage, and that movie came out in 1983. That you can’t beat the CGI of a nearly 40-year-old film but act like you can produce CGI on par with Spider-Man: No Way Home is so far beyond pathetic that a word for what you are doesn’t even exist in the English language.
That software already exists in the form of Blender, After Effects, and their respective well-known competitors. Not everyone wants to be an animator or a YouTuber…
…and that includes people who just want to watch a movie.
Re: Re: Re:8
This proves that youtube is freeriding on other people’s properties. First at&t complained that youtube gets free ride on their internet infrastructure. Now you’re proving that youtube gets free ride on content creation tools and platforms. After this, you cannot claim that youtube is legal operation, when their technology is freeriding on other people’s properties instead of creating good end-to-end system on its own.
Re: Re: Re:9
Except it’s not. True, YouTube does host a fair bit of content that infringes upon copyright, but a large swath of content on the service is either legally protected speech or provided by corporations. YouTube has never primarily “freerid[den] on other people’s properties” because the service was (and still is) about giving people a place to share videos.
what the fuck are you even trying to say here
Did you create your own programming language so you could use that to make Meshpage? Did you create your own operating system so you could use that to power the programming language that you used to make Meshpage? Did you build your own computer from parts you yourself crafted to run the operating system that powers the programming language that you used to make Meshpage? Did you build the power plant that gives electricty to the computer you built to run the operating system that powers the programming language that you used to make Meshpage?
We all “freeride” on preëxisting technologies, Tero. I couldn’t be typing out this reply without every bit of technology that led up to the creations of Windows 10, Mozilla Firefox, laptops, and the modern electrical grid. Get over yourself.
Re: Re: Re:10
The requirements for freeriding are significantly worse for large companies which could be market leaders in their area. Basically if one person does the freeriding, it doesn’t matter much, but if company with 1 million customers does the same thing, it causes significant distruptions all around the world. Thus youtube needs to be handled with stricter standard, and they have no good defense why their technology cannot do internet infrastructure or content creation technologies.
Re: Re: Re:11
Mr. Pulkinnen, what you’ve just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this comments section is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Re: Re: Re:12
I have all of europe to back my words. You know, all scientists agree with me about the issues. I know it’s above your level, but you should focus on the actual issues, i.e. why you’ve chosen copyright minimalism as your ideology. I think even blind chicken sometimes finds a seed from the ground, so I still trust that your ideology can be fixed, if you just carefully consider these issues.
Re: Re: Re:13
My copyright ideology is rooted in three ideas:
The RIAA sued dead people and innocent people. Corporations routinely use copyright to stop the sharing of content that said corporations refuse to make available in any legal form. Culture has been locked up for decades and even lost forever because of copyright.
The worst movies and books and music deserve the same level of care and attention to their preservation as the best. Copyright prevents that by making their preservation via third parties all but impossible. (Whatever excuse Disney and George Lucas still give out for not releasing the unaltered original Star Wars trilogy is bullshit.)
My ideology is rooted in the idea that modern copyright does more damage to our culture than any act of piracy. A pirate who downloads a copy of Morbius doesn’t hurt anyone. A copyright lawyer who DMCA’s a negative review of Morbius off YouTube because the review used one second of footage beyond that the studio behind that movie thinks is Fair Use hurts us all.
You can pay me every cent in the world and I will refuse to follow your ideology. You can put a gun to my head and I will refuse to follow your ideology. You can do anything to me that you want, good or bad, and I will refuse to follow your ideology because your extremist ideology is rooted in three bullshit ideas:
I’d rather be dead that follow your ideology, and nothing you say or do to me will ever change that fact.
FUCK. YOU.
Re: Re: Re:14
This is true. There are some rules that need to be followed:
1) all copyrighted works on the planet are owned by someone else than you. Thus only copyright owner can do some operations for them: PERFORM, DISPLAY, DISTRIBUTE
2) the only way to avoid (1) is via opening your wallet and actually licensing the material from the copyright owners
3) And copyright owners are not licensing them for full distribution rights, given that you cannot provide enough money for them, distribution rights are always very expensive
4) the actual content that you’d like to license(hollywood’s movie content) is all unavailable because the copyright owners are nowhere to be found
5) it’s simply not possible to get permission to mix and match scenes from your favourite movies and make a fast movie or a movie review or a hilarious joker mixmatch
6) When the world’s content isn’t available for your consumption, the correct choice of action isn’t to turn to pirate. The right solution is to become an author and start creating the material you want the world to have. While you will have competition and in internet many people do not respect the content you create, it’s still better than turning to criminal.
7) But copyright’s trick is more cunning than you think. You (as author) weren’t really creating the content to other people in the world. The world simply didn’t care about your content enough. The content you created had only one user, and that was you yourself. The process of creating the content is important because without it, you’ll get bored and turn to criminal when you need to remove boredom. Computers are amazing at removing boredom, but they simply cannot do it unless you refuse to use all copyrighted material in the world.
8) The content that other people have created are designed to be used by authors. But only once you no longer can create the material yourself. Maybe your education didn’t focus on the area that the creating that part of the product requires, but the world’s content is only available once all other avenues of product creation has been exhausted.
9) If you (as an author) decide to license other people’s work, your stack of money determines how much other people’s work you can actually use. This is why piracy is illegal, they use too much content and it causes tons of problems. World’s products are designed to be used with proper limits, you should use one or two pieces, but not more. The unlimited flood of pirated content is just completely ridiculous way of using content. There’s no reason for one person to purchase 10 vacuum cleaners, so why do you think one person should watch 10 movies in a row?
Re: Re: Re:15
All of what you said is a bunch of bullshit, but I did want to kick one thing in particular in the metaphorical nuts:
For what reason should one person be denied the right to legally watch as many movies or TV shows in a row as they want? I’ve got a bunch of Blu-rays in my possession—why shouldn’t I be able to binge ten of them in a row?
Re: Re: Re:16
There’s 2 main reasons:
1) brainwashing. The movies/tv shows if consumed in too large volume, are equivalent of brainwashing.
2) supply-side has per-customer cost element available. Entities that get used too much in the marketplace are struggling to support their customers in required manner
Copyright law solves both of these problems with money. amount of (1) is limited by the amount of money that users can spend on the content. Amount of (2) is solved by transfer of money from customer to the supply organisation.
Re: Re: Re:17
…what
…what
I own more than two dozen Blu-rays. For what reason should I not be allowed to watch even half of them consecutively?
Re: Re: Re:18
you just didn’t use tv enough i guess, if you didn’t know this minor problem with the tv? too much tv usage and you get real human rights problems.
Re: Re: Re:19
Anything done to extremes will probably be harmful. What he’s done is clearly not close to the extreme needed to be harmful. You seem to have an obsession with outlawing legal activity, but I can’t say it’s surprising at this point.
Re: Re: Re:15
So you went from “copyright isn’t about control” to “actually, yes, it’s about control”. Just about the usual standard of Tero Pulkinnen lying, really.
You really are trying your best to project your failures onto the rest of the world. It’s almost adorable in that pathetic meta sort of way.
People play games. People read books. People watch documentaries. People use copyrighted material all the time for entertainment. I get that you desperately want people to be funneled to Meshpage and have all other forms of entertainment destroyed, but the government is not going to rule everything else illegal.
Purchasing ten vacuum cleaners isn’t illegal. Watching ten movies in a row isn’t illegal, either. It’s called a movie marathon. In your opinion, you might consider that watching ten 10-minute summaries of movies to be illegal, and that’s on you. But it’s not the heinous crime you keep making it out to be.
Re: Re: Re:13
Argument from popularity fallacy.
[citation needed]
Also, a scientist’s opinion on something they aren’t specialized in is completely irrelevant. Argument from authority fallacy plus argument from popularity.
Maybe if your statements bore any resemblance to reality or even a coherent thought, you might have a point. Also, you haven’t exactly been focused, either.
I have considered the issues. I’m not so sure that you have.
Re: Re: Re:13
You can’t even get your own government to worship you as a font of wisdom and copyright. You can’t even get your government to make good on the promises of riches you think they guaranteed as a result of copyright law. You can’t even get your government to use the software you created.
Meanwhile, actually sensible users of the Internet talk about copyright issues. They protested Articles 13 and 17 and proved that many of the claims made by copyright proponents simply aren’t possible. They got into politics and got your heroes to admit that they were lying or incorrect about their mandatory filter demands.
Whoever Europe is backing, it sure as hell isn’t you.
Not worshipping copyright maximalism or “stricter copyright laws” the way you do does not mean that anyone has chosen “copyright minimalism” as an ideology. Most people do not think that rape or murder should be a penalty for being accused of copyright infringement. Unlike you, who stated multiple times that you think loan sharks and organ harvesting should be ordered on people who don’t pay the RIAA.
Now there’s plenty of comments on this thread that could be responded to, but I can sum it up thus: if you had any form of meaningful support, Tero, you wouldn’t be here threatening to rape, murder, and organ harvest people.
Re: Re: Re:14
The proof is slightly interesting. Noone on europe knows who I am. But they still subscribe to everything I say. This was ensured by carefully listening the signals that europe is sending over the internet. When you detect weak signals of trends that are emerging, you simultaniously get the whole continent to agree with your statements. This is actually a problem with listening your customers, it’s not healthy to get generalised agreement from the whole continent.
This is why I need to troll on techdirt. It isn’t in europe, so they don’t necessarily agree with my statements. This might explain some of the disagreements we’ve had. The whole europe seems to agree with the stuff though.
Re: Re: Re:15
You literally made a claim that the entirety of Europe supported you. If the whole of Europe was truly riding the trends that you claim to have predicted, you wouldn’t be claiming “weak signals of trends” as proof of the non-existent support you have.
People disagree with you because you advocate murder and rape in the name of copyright. It hardly matters what continent you’re in. I daresay you could walk out onto the street in Finland right now and demand the government for Meshpage money and not get the money you ask for.
Re: Re: Re:16
Are you claiming that europe doesn’t support the claim that meshpage and gameapi builder looks like 1980’s technology? (it was designed to look like that)
Europe supports this kind of claims, where my technology is being bashed and critique placed on it. This critique is all healthy, even though I’ve explicitly designed it to look like 1980’s tech.
But this is how europe is agreeing with me. When I design my software as 1980s tech, and the customers can see just 1980s tech, they’re clearly agreeing with me. Thus europe supports me in this position that I have.
But you cannot get europe’s support unless there is very wide support for the issues. Republicans can never agree with anything from democrats, and getting consensus is next to impossible if there’s more than 2 people involved, getting agreement from the whole continent seems almost impossible.
But you just need to listen what is essential for those users. Once you recognize that designing software to look like 1980s tech, the people will see 1980s tech and cannot consider any other flaws when the user interface details are eating all the focus.
So my users are exactly where I designed them to be. The whole europe agrees with this.
Re: Re: Re:17
I’m claiming Europe does not support your beliefs on copyright law. Whether people like that your software looks like it came from the 1980s is irrelevant. Even if other Europeans agreed on how Meshpage aesthetics look, that doesn’t mean they agree that Meshpage is useful, or that people should be murdered in the name of copyright.
Getting your users to critique your software’s appearance and not the core functionality is not a helpful strategy, not if you want to sustain a base of users. If this is your plan to get people to use Meshpage by vainly hiding away problem areas through showing them other problems, it’s a terrible plan. But it does explain why you have zero users.
Re: Re: Re:18
You didn’t notice that there isn’t any “core functionality” in the software, when the main goal with the project is to get it to look nice. That’s already enough challenge for one person, and most of my competitors are nowhere near getting that done.
Re: Re: Re:19
The fact that there was no core functionality to your software was obvious from Day 1. Honestly, anyone with even a passing familiarity with how 3D modeling engines work would have been able to tell this.
I mean, the fact that you admit Meshpage lacks any core functionality is pretty funny, but at this point it’s like explaining a joke a week after you heard it.
And you haven’t met that goal, either.
While true, it’s also meaningless if you’re trying to demand money from the government.
That’s your opinion, and despite what you think, other software options have significantly more users than you do. Appearances aren’t everything.
Re: Re: Re:20
This isn’t true. The govt was very interested in what exactly one person working alone while not having anything else to do could get done in current technology environment. Getting stuff that looks nice and finished/polished software is important for the government, since they can easier hand over the money when they don’t have danger that the money goes to some lazy bums. This way their statistics of how much lazy people there exist in their money leash can be bumped down to acceptable level.
Re: Re: Re:21
And again, you’ve yet to show any proof of this supposed promise of being reimbursed for your efforts. I can tell you based on historic trends, any government is rarely interested in what one person working alone will do.
No, what any functioning government will care about is whether your work has any core functionality or usefulness. Which you’ve already admitted that Meshpage lacks, by intentional design, so… once again, thanks for shooting yourself in the foot so I don’t have to.
Re: Re: Re:22
usefulness can be established other ways than with core functionality.
Re: Re: Re:23
If you had any other metrics of usefulness, you’d have established them by now.
Hell, you’d have established usage of your software by a child, the target audience you keep insisting your software is good for.
And yet, you have yet to.
Re: Re: Re:9
By that logic, TVs are freeriding on other people’s property.
Re:
… said nobody with the slightest understanding of copyright, ever.
Re: Re:
I dunno, I think I’d like to hear more of this “Lord of the Rings infringes on the copyright of The Patty Duke Show” legal theory before I make up my mind.
Re: Re: Re:
Frankly, Tero’s legal insanities are a good thought exercise if only to demonstrate how batshit insane copyright advocates are. They’re so tied to the hip of self-enrichment they get genuinely confused and offended when people call out their destructive and antisocial behavior.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Copyright law calls these people authors. There’s separate section in the copyright laws that deals with how compensation needs to be handled by requiring users to obtain permission from the authors, or refuse to use the material.
Re: Re: Re:3
Wrong, the people getting rich from copyright are the executives of the various publishing companies. The only creative thing they do is writing contracts, and carrying out accounting so as to keep as much of the income from creative works as is possible.
Re: Re: Re:3 So sue me bro
Notably you didn’t rebut anything AC said.
Re: Re: Re:3
Hey shithead, I’ve a thought exercise for you.
Let’s say I write a sci-fi action/adventure story set in space that focuses on a ragtag group of heroes fighting against explicitly authoritarian villains bent on controlling the galaxy. Who owns that generalized idea, such that I have to pay them royalties if I publish that story anywhere?
Re: Re: Re:4
Usually good idea is to collect source material from many different places. If YOU collected the material from say 10 different places, then there’s two alternative paths: either you obtain permission from ALL the persons who contributed, or you decide that you yourself spent enough effort for the collection/implementation activity that you don’t need to obtain permission. But if you don’t have permission from all of them, then you only own the combination feature, but not individual pieces of the combination. This matters when you’re suing people for copyright infringement, combination feature infringement is significantly more difficult to find from the marketplace.
It depends on where YOU got the idea from? Maybe you learned it in school, then you need to obtain permission from your teacher. If you learned it from some existing book, then you need to obtain permission from the book author. If you saw it in tv, you need to find the tv network’s permission. If you saw it in a movie, you need the person who wrote the movie script…
Etc, the compensation part needs to be provided to the person who provided the original material.
Re: Re: Re:5
That… is not how copyright law works, unless you’re trying to suggest that this should be illegal. If effort for collecting allowed someone to bypass copyright law, then congratulations – you’ve just argued that pirate sites should be legal.
Turns out that remixing and other methods of content creation are legal and the claim of “combination feature infringement” doesn’t actually exist in law. Well… that’s your problem, not ours.
And where did YOU compensate the people who inspired you to build a browser-supported 3D engine?
Re: Re: Re:6
It’s actually related to your favorite fair use argument. If you wrote a book, but need to obtain a permission separately for each letter in the book, the burden of obtaining permission becomes too much compared to the usefulness of permissions. This is why very small pieces of copyrighted works are considered fair use, so that asking for permission is reserved exclusively to the main themes of the book.
But pirates are considering that all requests of asking permissions are too much work. And that isn’t acceptable. Large sections of someone elses work, the money need to flow to the original authors and it’s copyright infringement if that isn’t being done.
Re: Re: Re:7
You have no one to blame for yourself, and your fellow copyright trolls who demanded takedowns of white noise and birdsongs.
Re: Re: Re:3
No, it doesn’t. Most copyright advocates (at least on the extreme end) are not authors, and a number of authors are not copyright advocates.
Regarding the former, while a majority of the staunchest of copyright advocates likely are copyright holders, most copyright holders who are copyright advocates are not actually the authors but were assigned the copyright by someone else (potentially the author(s)), whether by a work-for-hire contract, a deal that transfers copyright ownership from one person to another, or by inheritance. And quite a few copyright advocates are neither authors nor copyright holders, such as the RIAA (which is an advocacy group that ostensibly represents the interests of authors but really just represents the interests of copyright holders) and a number of politicians (as well as some judges like the late Ruth Bader Ginsberg). To say that all copyright advocates are authors under copyright law is a gross misstatement. It is demonstrably, clearly, and obviously false.
Replace “authors” with “copyright holders” and, aside from exceptions to copyright, this is largely true. It also has nothing at all to do with what was said. Nowhere does it say anything about copyright advocates being authors.
Re: Re: Re:4
This is bold claim. If this is true, it would mean that authors already received their compensation for the work and have already passed the buck to next sucker in the line. But my $48 money reward for 10 years of work does not really support this. The markets moved to the direction where publishers are not available for authors who create copyrighted works. Instead there’s tons of services that are willing to publish the work without compensation. For example html5, youtube, twitter, linkedin are all willing to publish author’s work, but they are not promising any compensation. This means that the publisher-level services are not available in the market and freeriding criminals have taken their place. This is a clear market failure that should be fixed.
Re: Re: Re:5
It really isn’t. The entities that hold the largest amount of copyrights are typically major media corporations such as movie studios, book publishers, record labels, and Disney. Hell, Disney owns Marvel, Fox, ABC, ESPN, and probably my left kidney.
what the fuck are you talking about
Except there are publishers—plenty of them, in fact. But they don’t have to publish every work submitted to them. That’s the way it’s been even before you were born, dropped on your head, and apparently raised by an insane cult copyright lawyers.
Most services that let people sell their works through a given service take a cut of that sale as a way to help pay for the continued operation of that service.
HTML5 is a technological standard, not a publisher, you fucking moron.
Yes, and…so what? People know that. If anyone thought they would get paid by Twitter to tweet, they’re even dumber than you.
Except they are. Just because those services don’t act like traditional publishers and don’t take control of an artist’s copyrights and such doesn’t make those services any less available—or legal. Or do you really want to argue that anyone who uses itch.io, Gumroad, Patreon, and other such services as a way to sell (or give away) copies of their creative works is a “freeriding criminal”?
Re: Re: Re:6
Its also publishing platform that allows anyone to publish their writings. But it does not promise compensation.
Re: Re: Re:7
No, it isn’t. HTML5 is a technological standard; people can publish a game made in HTML5, but they still need a platform to host it on. HTML5 isn’t a platform—but a service like itch.io is.
Re: You really are the dumbest copyright cop
“1) the product would not be possible without the original existing first”
Well except for satire, commentary, critique, public domain,, or any number of other things.
Fast movies? In my day, we called them “Clip Shows.”
And we hated them even then.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Market Opportunity
Instead of Cliff’s Notes for books, it’s Fast Movies for films. Brilliant! I hope the entertainment industry comes to realize that there’s an intermediate market for people who want to be down with what happened, but don’t want to pay full price and spend 150 minutes at the theater. Some folks go to the restaurant but don’t order a $100 feast; instead, they just get the salad.
But are they as good as these?
Comedy classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qG5_C29O3Q and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTijCtJIcF8 or even this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwA4abwHdwM
The populatization of summarized movies was foretold by Ray Bradbury.
If they can’t stand the full 2 hours, then they already have dead brains.
BTW I like “Te lo resumo así nomás”, an Argentine film summary series filled with jokes and cross-references. The worse the film, the best the episode.
Can’t miss the 10 minute summary of three crocodile horror films, with cameos of Latin American telelovelas.