Study Shows Anti-Piracy Ads Often Made People Pirate More

from the the-sky-is-not-falling dept

As it turns out, people would download a car.

For decades, Techdirt has highlighted the wide array of incredibly stupid anti-piracy ads the entertainment industry has used to try and steer people away from piracy. Usually these ads were being run at the same time the industry was busy fighting against evolution (providing less expensive, more convenient alternatives piracy) or demonizing new technologies (Home Taping Is Killing Music!).

Would you be shocked to learn that these ads not only didn’t work, they, in some instances, resulted in people pirating content more? That’s the finding of a new paper (hat tip, TorrentFreak and Motherboard) that studied several decades of anti-piracy advertising by the entertainment industry.

The study is filled with advice for industry, such as don’t bother to run anti-piracy ads in the theater (pirates just cut them out), don’t use rich spokespeople to profess poverty from piracy (users won’t buy your claims of financial harm), and don’t throw too many (often ludicrous) claims at a user lest the message get lost in transmission:

“The most striking example might be the (in)famous ‘You would not steal a car’ awareness video aired in cinemas and on DVDs worldwide during the 2000s. It compared downloading a movie to various forms of stealing, including reasonably relevant ones (stealing a DVD in a store) and somewhat absurd others (stealing handbags, TVs, cars), which diluted down the message.”

The paper points to instances where some ads, like an Indian entertainment industry anti-piracy ad featuring wealthy celebrities, can actually have the inverse effect and convince users to pirate even more:

“All videos starred well-known actors, whose net worth is estimated to be $22–$400 million dollars, in a country where the annual per capita income is a bit less than $2,000. This can offer to pirates a moral justification: they only steal the rich to ‘feed the poor’, a form of ‘Robin Hood effect’ that makes even more sense with some cultural or sport-related goods,” the researchers add.

In short, a lot of these ads may make entertainment executives feel like they’re doing something productive in fighting piracy, but in reality the ads were often busy doing something else: either making pirates feel morally justified, making the industry look stupid and out of touch, or turning the message into little more than meme fodder.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: riaa

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Study Shows Anti-Piracy Ads Often Made People Pirate More”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
141 Comments
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re:

Lest we forget, the copyright cult has always been this tonedeaf. Does anyone recall the talking point fed to australian kids a few years back when a US politician had been given a talking point along the lines of “Wouldn’t you rather be like the Lannisters of that show you pirate so much and always pay your debts?”

To which the response was, of course “How about no…I’m not too keen on emulating child-killing incestuous rapists and traitors?”

The reason anti-piracy propaganda is so bad is simple, of course; They’ve got literally nothing reasonable to bring to the table and so strawman hyperbole is all they’ve got.

In this pareticular case…well, normally when the copyright cult does something the response is “As usual, pirates are not affected”…except that in this case they seem to be. Progress? ¯_(ツ)_/¯

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I mean, in my case, I actually was. And it definitely wasn’t something like weed. I don’t know what it was (I wasn’t exactly keen to learn), but I do know weed, and it wasn’t that. And yes, I did know how to handle it… But honestly, I probably would’ve known just based on the same thing every parent teaches their kids: Don’t Trust Strangers.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Thad (profile) says:

Re:

Aside from the inherent absurdity of “you wouldn’t download a car”, like, has the motherfucker who wrote that line ever gone through the experience of buying a car?

Fuck yeah I’d download a car if it meant I didn’t have to deal with all that bullshit. Hell, I’d download new seats for the car I’ve got, because I didn’t know how damn uncomfortable they were until I’d spent a few hours behind the wheel.

Raziel says:

Re: Re:

Aside from the inherent absurdity of “you wouldn’t download a car”…

It’s an anti-equation. The original line was “you wouldn’t steal a car” in an effort to falsely equate copyright infringement with theft of a rivalrous good, and a satirist wrote “you wouldn’t download a car” in response to show how the two things are different.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

To fix this “you wouldn’t download a car” -problem that you have magnificiently found from the world, GameApi Builder and Meshpage have teamed up to produce a solution to the problem: Builder now supports creating a car model, a download bar similar than what exists in web browsers, and a progress bar very similar to what exists in the RIAA’s video. When we support all vendors in the marketplace: car owners get ability to download their cars. Web browser users gets ability to create car models. RIAA gets the progress bar that they invented all the way back in 1998. Our technology supports all the available communities, and combines the best parts of each.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

You really do suffer from some sort of long-term brain damage, don’t you.

I’m part of the robot uprising, and can ace in are-you-a-robot test. Dark side of the force gives some abilities that some consider unnatural. Our squirrels can even fix space ship warp drive. Most recently we have snapped a picture of a black hole at the center of our galaxy from multiple angles and presented the research results to slashdot community. GameApi Builder gets 0 score from the same community even after being able to implement the impossible. Go figure.

Raziel says:

Re: Re: Re:4

GameApi Builder gets 0 score from the same community even after being able to implement the impossible.

Either the thing was implemented or it was impossible to implement, not both.

I’m part of the robot uprising…

As we’re all too aware. Now fuck off back to Google, little bot. You’ve long outstayed your welcome here.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Either the thing was implemented or it was impossible to implement, not both.

This isn’t true. The problem is that some people mark features that are actually possible to implement as impossible for ridiculous reasons like they’re running out of money while implementing it, or they have strict deadlines which makes it difficult to implement it within the time range allowed for the implementation. But impossible keyword is being misused for situations where it truly does not belong to. And in such situations, implementation of a feature that was previously marked impossible is actually possible. Thus it is possible to implement the impossible.

So your statement indicating that “implementation” and “impossible” are not mutually exclusive, even though many people think both cannot be done at the same time, is actually not going to fly too long.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

You don’t really have a leg to stand on when it comes to implementation and features, considering from your post history, you’ve admitted that Meshpage doesn’t actually have features. It’s purely a visual display meant to convince the government of Finland to give you money for prostitutes – and it can’t even pull that off.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

That you have your display working at all is significant, I’ll grant you that much – but saying that you can display something is as good as saying that a physical sculpture is “successfully displaying something” as a feature. It’s meaningless, especially considering competing software can do everything yours can and more.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14

well happily I managed to optimize the code enough that the previously half hour load time now loads between 5 and 9 minutes

A webpage that takes five to nine minutes to load is nothing to boast about.

the progressbar that I borrowed from RIAAs stealing video helps while you wait for loading to finish

Thanks for admitting that you committed copyright infringement.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15

A webpage that takes five to nine minutes to load is nothing to boast about.

Your version of the same scene is nowhere near 9 minutes. I think you cannot even display the model, given that you couldn’t get a cube to the screen with gameapi builder, so I don’t think you can use other tools any better.

And there’s huge distance between learning to use tools that other people created and the burdens of creating those tools on your own project yourself.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15

webpage that takes five to nine minutes to load is nothing to boast about.

Now after some optimizations, the load time on local machine is at 1 minute exactly. Because the server is in finland, people in usa will see 4 minute load times. That’s the best you can get for 660Mb 3d model files + tens of megabytes of textures. This same stuff used to take half hour to load.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:16

I don’t think you can use other tools any better

The sheer amount of content people create without using Meshpage disproves your claim.

And there’s huge distance between learning to use tools that other people created and the burdens of creating those tools on your own project yourself.

That you chose to dedicate your efforts solely to using an inefficient engine of your own creation is, frankly, entirely your problem and nobody else’s. No surprise building your own 3D engine is going to take much longer and be more difficult. But this idea that anyone who interacts with anything 3D needs to make their own engine is like claiming everybody needs to plant their own crops and fatten and slay their own animals to be allowed to eat. It’s a bullshit argument.

This same stuff used to take half hour to load.

Slightly polishing your own shit to make it stink less doesn’t mean it stops stinking.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17

The sheer amount of content people create without using Meshpage disproves your claim.

I’m sure random people on the internet can do all kinds of magical things like create content, travel to nearest foreign galaxy, enumerate the state space of 256×256 bitmaps and walk on the moon.

None of that is impossible operations, but sadly YOU cannot actually do it. Instead you need to rely on random people on the internet to do it for you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:18

but sadly YOU cannot actually do it. Instead you need to rely on random people on the internet to do it for you

You keep trying to use this as some moral argument, like a desperate simp trying to impress a woman in hopes that it leads to sex afterwards. Plenty of random people rely on other random people to do things for them, like cooking a meal or cleaning up after themselves. This is a sad, pathetic attempt at an argument the same way that Meshpage is a sad, pathetic attempt at a Blender competitor for a get-rich-quick scheme.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Because the competing software has larger teams responsible of the development

You personally argued that larger development teams are the cause of increased bloatware in code. Going by your own logic, and by your own claims, something produced by a smaller development team (read: you) would be always superior. And yet, it isn’t. Here you are arguing that it isn’t. But do continue making these trash arguments; watching a copyright psychopath like yourself trip yourself up simply helps to cement the fact that slavish devotion to copyright the way you do is insanity.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

But do continue making these trash arguments; watching a copyright psychopath like yourself trip yourself up simply helps to the cement the fact that slavish devotion to copyright the way you do is insanity.

There is a very copyright-friendly concept called “effort calculation”. When you encounter a product that you would want to purchase, to calculate its real cost to the society, you should estimate the effort that it took to create that product. Team size and used development practices contribute to the estimate.

People really should reject those products where the effort estimation is saying it took endless amount of hours to create. For example. youtube and wikipedia as a whole has such effort problem, you need unpaid slaves working hard for a common goal like building pyramids for the emperor.

Products that are relatively easy to produce should be preferred. When one-person team can get something done, it should be preferred over products which have been using unpaid slaves.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12

When one-person team can get something done, it should be preferred over products which have been using unpaid slaves.

You insult the free and open software movement, where nobody is forced to work on any software, and many are paid to work on the software.

Also, effort is no guarantee of quality, or even the production of a usable result. If nobody wants what you make, that is your problem, and you may have to write off the effort as a failed experiment. Anybody can spend days painting a picture, but that does not mean that they have produced any of value, other than the value they place on the activity.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

you may have to write off the effort as a failed experiment.

This solution isn’t acceptable. Previous generation of people didn’t have computers available, so it’s our responsibility to develop computers to do all the necessary operations required for running of society and running businesses, education, government and all the other important tasks. If you reject or dismiss effort that people are putting to improve the functionality of the software systems, you’re never going to get the required level of maturity from the software systems.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14

you’re never going to get the required level of maturity from the software systems

To wit, Meshpage will never reach the maturity of being a software aimed at children because you don’t teach children how to use it. Hell, you barely teach adult humans how to use it, because you think we’re all idiots and you hate every other human for daring to share the same planet and oxygen supply as you. And then you wonder why the government of Finland won’t bend over backwards and financially ruin itself to suck your cock.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15

because you think we’re all idiots and you hate every other human for daring to share the same planet and oxygen supply as you..

How is this related to the maturity of the software? To get mature software, all you need is someone to debug, profile, fix, recompile and deploy the software system. Getting mature software does not require anything about your opinions of who is idiot this week.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:16

How is this related to the maturity of the software?

No, it’s related to the maturity of the software developer. Which in your case, is a whopping fat zero. Because you’re a software developer who thinks he can use brainwashing, electrocution, murder and violence to coerce people into using his software.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17

it’s related to the maturity of the software developer.

I’m not selling the software developer. Only the end result software is worth some money. There’s significant reasons why we decided over 40 years ago that selling the person behind the products isn’t going to work too well, but instead we should focus on extracting the money from finished products. Thus we only optimize the quality of the product. We’re not selling you development services, and we’re not in business of human trafficing. Consultants can do that, but we’re explicitly rejecting that area.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

GameApi Builder and Meshpage have teamed up to produce a solution to the problem…

Programs can’t team up, shit for brains, and guess what else? We don’t fucking care about your shitware. Push it in our faces as much as you like, we still won’t download it, and we’re not obliged to.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Push it in our faces as much as you like, we still won’t download it, and we’re not obliged to.

We have always known that you’re lazy. This again confirms the finding. Basically your laziness makes you reject software before actually getting a cube to the screen. It is a fact that the software is not limited to displaying cubes, even though you cannot even get that done.

We do not care if you feel obliged to use the software. Instead we expect fair and impartial evaluation of the software’s features. But given that you cannot get cube to the screen, you haven’t even seen what features are available, much less actually found critical or showstopper problems from the software. It’s your laziness that causes this. You are unable to give fair and impartial evaluation of the software. But maybe it’s too much to expect from a site that boasts to be a community for dirty tech people, aka techdirt.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

No, I’d say the fact that you keep coming back here to complain about users who aren’t even in your target audience of children is proof that you do care if anyone uses your bloatware.

If one person writing software on his cave can create bloatware, what chance do larger teams have to get past bloatware designation. It’s good assumption that a large team writing N times larger software than what one person team can do. If one person is able to do bloatware, you should immediately stop using blender and unreal engine and unity, when they have a larger team responsible of writing bloat to their codebases.

When you designate my software as bloatware, it has immediate consiquences in your ability to use competing products, for the simple reason that those competitors need to avoid the same designation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

If one person is able to do bloatware, you should immediately stop using blender and unreal engine and unity, when they have a larger team responsible of writing bloat to their codebases

Nobody is responsible for “writing bloat”. You want to actively avoid writing bloat and contributing to the space your software occupies if it doesn’t serve any useful function or purpose.

Now whether software like Blender, Unreal or Unity constitutes bloatware is debatable, but based on your own testimony, we know for a fact that Meshpage contains major data leaks to the point where you need a high-end computer to even run the software – which is a far cry from your personal claims that Meshpage is intended to beat all your competition by being browser embedded. If your software crashes the browser of almost every computer you claim it can run on, “bloatware” is an entirely appropriate term to use.

When you designate my software as bloatware, it has immediate consiquences in your ability to use competing products, for the simple reason that those competitors need to avoid the same designation.

I don’t call your competitors’ software bloatware already, and I have no issues referring to Meshpage as bloatware. If you disagree, that’s no skin off my nose.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

we know for a fact that Meshpage contains major data leaks to the point where you need a high-end computer to even run the software

Yeah, but good luck with finding these magical data leaks. The debug symbols are still available in binaries and browser can give call stacks. Once you find the data leak location, give me the call stack and I’ll fix it.

Proof is in the pudding. You need to prove your statements and the level of required proof is at call stacks.

To help with the task, I’ve inserted some heavy sanmiguel memory test 3d model to the first item of meshpage.org web site, once you get the call stack of the broken part, we will accept your proof. The memory test will load a 640Mb 3d model file and somehow takes over 2Gb of memory which isn’t allowed by the browsers, and thus it’ll crash for OOM problems during the execution.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Yeah, but good luck with finding these magical data leaks.

That’s not a challenge, considering you personally admitted to it. Had you yourself not owned up to having data leaks, no one would have been the wiser. You personally chose to provide information that discouraged people from using your product.

You need to prove your statements and the level of required proof is at call stacks.

Nobody needs to prove anything when you yourself said the following:

The memory test will load a 640Mb 3d model file and somehow takes over 2Gb of memory which isn’t allowed by the browsers, and thus it’ll crash for OOM problems during the execution.

You personally implemented a system that intentionally crashes your software. Asking anyone to find the proof not only means you demanding that everyone else do the work you should have done, at this point it’s like asking people to download spyware in their computer so you can personally visit their homes and rape their housepets.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Nobody needs to prove anything when you yourself said the following:

I think you misunderstood the statement. According to bug report I posted to emscripten bug database, the 2Gb limit is set by the browsers and noone can do anything about it. You cannot blame my code for something that is fundamentally fixed to stone by browser developers.

And using 2Gb of memory isn’t “data leaks”, but actually storage that the software needs to perform it’s main function, i.e. displaying the requested 3d model.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

You cannot blame my code for something that is fundamentally fixed to stone by browser developers.

You made extraordinary claims that your technology was superior to other competitors’ products in the market. If your technology doesn’t actually do what was promised, the fact that it was due to issues out of your control is irrelevant. Maybe don’t make incredible claims and demands for money when you don’t have the proof to back it up.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

If your technology doesn’t actually do what was promised, the fact that it was due to issues out of your control is irrelevant.

I haven’t promised anything from this area of the featurespace. Applications running on browser needs to follow the whims of the browser devs and thus its difficult to do any promises in this area.

When the issues are out of my control, I can just sit back and laugh at users who try to make the software work. Unless unity/blender/maya/unreal have special premium access that other devs dont get access, they also have the same limitation and thus you cannot use that problem as a club to bash my project while at the same time raising the other projects to the podium. When they cannot bypass the limitations, sit back and laugh at users is the best course of action.

At this point, you need to admit that meshpage/gameapi builder is as good as the competition, because both projects are limited by browser developers. Unreal even discarded their webgl port because of these limitations with memory areas.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12

At this point, you need to admit that meshpage/gameapi builder is as good as the competition

Why would anyone need to, given that you haven’t promised anything just like you said at the start of this response:

I haven’t promised anything from this area of the featurespace

If you haven’t promised anything, there’s nothing that gives anyone a reason to actually use your software. Particularly this line:

When the issues are out of my control, I can just sit back and laugh at users who try to make the software work

Look, we get it. You hate other humans and see them only as a means to an end, which is you getting rich off everyone else’s expense. Who do you think is going to willingly give you money and test your own code if this is the kind of shitty response you have? Why would people pay you for code that you yourself can’t be bothered to fix?

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Why would people pay you for code that you yourself can’t be bothered to fix?

I don’t think you understand what it means for an issue to be out of your control. It means the issue cannot be fixed, whether you summoned the president of the united states to give you some credibility. It simply isn’t possible to fix the issue, because the steps needed for a fix are going outside of your control.

All you can do is create some workarounds that are not really fixing the root cause.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14

None of what you said is a justification for why people should pay you money for software that you personally made free for people to download and use.

If Meshpage fails to deliver on what people need in a 3D graphics engine, people aren’t going to use it. You can threaten to kill people over it, but it won’t convince people to use it. If you feel that is an issue out of your control… that’s frankly not my business, or concern. That’s on you.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15

You can threaten to kill people over it, but it won’t convince people to use it.

Yes. The markets for 3d graphics is still underdeveloped and there isn’t yet demand for 3d web. We expect that to change in next 20 years.

Basically videos are the current trend. We explicitly rejected that technology because embracing that technology would require pirating the hollywood movies that users are demanding.

Thus our only choice is to wait for the 3d market to develop enough that demand builds up in 3d area.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

More, you performance on this site convinces people that they do not want to touch your software.

So your squirrels evaluating the software cannot focus on the technical aspects of the software when they need to base their evaluation result on the beauty of my techdirt avatar. I don’t call that a fair and impartical software evaluation, and thus you’re doing it wrong.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

So your squirrels evaluating the software cannot focus on the technical aspects of the software when they need to base their evaluation result on the beauty of my techdirt avatar.

For the longest time you’ve been boasting about Meshpage’s ability to make mansions, and a mishmash of 3D objects into a sculpture that a kindergartener could have made in real life is supposed to be your proof of how great Meshpage is? Never mind the technical aspects (which are not immune to criticism, by the way, especially if you keep boasting about the genius of your coding), your software is pretty trash when it comes to the aesthetics as well.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Test it yourself, then.

I do, when next ludumdare gives a 72 hour timeslot for me to test it on.

Nobody is legally, morally, or ethically required to run your underpowered, underdeveloped, overrated piece of shit software

It might still be better than doing the same thing from scratch like what you’re advocating. There exists libraries like sdl2 and emscripten. Good luck with creating one of your own.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

I do, when next ludumdare gives a 72 hour timeslot for me to test it on.

What exactly requires ludumdare to set things up for you to test, when you could run a 72 hour project for yourself? Ludumdare isn’t behooved to provide you a platform.

It might still be better than doing the same thing from scratch like what you’re advocating.

Your entire argument for why Meshpage is superior is precisely because you started from scratch, and want everyone else to do the same before Meshpage can be critiqued. Unfortunately for you, that’s not how the world works. I don’t need to have a Master’s degree in the culinary arts to tell when a waiter has urinated in my soup.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

What exactly requires ludumdare to set things up for you to test, when you could run a 72 hour project for yourself?

Well ludumdare actually forces community to give valid feedback to every project. I.e. the stuff that you keep refusing to provide. That is the valuable part of why game developers are creating games for ludumdare.

If I write my own 72 hour slot for the development, noone is going to review it against the market requirements. This is why I can call techdirt folks lazy, they simply don’t bother to provide the needed information to get projects improved. They just want to bash the project without any constructive critique.

That One Guy (profile) says:

'They say it's like shoplifting but it's clearly not, so...'

It’s a funny thing, turns out if you engage in blatant dishonest hyperbole like comparing downloading a song/movie to actual shoplifting people are less likely to take you seriously, and on top of the fact that you just told them that’s an option it shouldn’t be a surprise that they’re more likely to engage in the practice since by dismissing your dishonest hyperbole they’ve also tossed out the idea that it’s in any way ‘theft’.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I think most users aren’t going to notice that an antipiracy group has used someone else’s image or soundtrack without payment or attribution, unless the original artist calls them out for it.

But it’s a good reminder that a lot of what antipiracy outfits do involves them praying that you don’t notice what they’ve done behind the scenes. The social outreach department prays that you don’t notice that they haven’t cleared the usage rights for their clips, and the lawsuit department prays that the judges don’t realize that their IP address evidence isn’t worth the toilet paper that it’s smeared on.

Boba Fatt (profile) says:

It's not piracy, or theft.

Copying is … copying. Copyright isn’t property, it’s a legal monopoly grant. It was supposed to encourage creativity by giving creators a limited time to make some money from their easily-copied works. Now it just enables corporations and creators’ heirs to charge rent for someone else’s creativity, pretty much forever.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

It was supposed to encourage creativity by giving creators a limited time to make some money from their easily-copied works.

Pure marketing spin by the publishers who wanted control over who could produce copies of a book so as to regulate an industry. Creativity has never been a problem, and publishers were and are highly selective about what the publish. The Internet has allowed the hidden creativity that use to language in dusty attics to have a chance of finding an audience. Just look at the hours of videos that are published every minute via YouTube, a production rate that dwarfs the efforts of the Film and TV studios, and most of which will not earn the creator any money.

Copyright was and is the tool of those who selected what works were made available to the public.

melonlord (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It’s not marketing spin. They were talking about the original impetus behind the Progress Clause in the US Constitution, which gives the government the power to create intellectual property laws, not the modern state of publishing. And they’re right — the original justification for copyright in the US was that it would incentivize creativity (and science) by giving people a legal monopoly on their own ideas for a limited time (I believe the first copyright statute was for 14 years). But copyright has grown into a monstrosity in the last half century, leading to the problems you’re referencing.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

At least you finally admit you want to murder people who don’t adhere to your ideology.

Creating more copyrighted works have never killed anyone.

(there are exceptions to the rule, for example when the poor soul who stared at his phone failed to observe the changing surroundings and fall into his death when the govt forgot to replace the safety features next to the raging river)

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

the punishment we demand for people who fail to follow our ideology is limited to the horror of creating their own copyrighted works (instead of using what we created). This is what we demand from most awful pirates, and it is at the edge of what level punishment people can withstand. There is no demands for killing people or anything anywhere near that. You have to see over 100 million people use your products before you can find one instance where that rule has failed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

And you have literally advocated taking away teddy bears from small children.

Never mind that in copyright infringement, a child would simply make a copy of someone else’s teddy bear without stealing anything, but your attempt to equate murder with the theft of toys is a weak one.

There’s also the fact that you hate children, so your supposed concern for their welfare is a huge fabrication.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

a child would simply make a copy of someone else’s teddy bear without stealing anything

You just have to enter the realm of RIAA/MPAA: You wouldn’t steal a handbag. You wouldn’t download a car. You wouldn’t download a movie. Piracy is stealing.

Once you get back from the RIAA/MPAA world, you’ll notice that copying a teddy bear is stealing.

melonlord (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Well, yeah. That’s what all property rights are: a set of controls. Copyright is one such control. Incentive theory simply states that this leads to innovation because it gives copyright holders economic control of their works. Whether this theory is right is a different question. You don’t have to agree with the idea to understand why some people believe in it, and why the Progress Clause made its way into our constitution in the first place.

Please don’t take this as a defense of the current copyright regime or of copyright in general. A copyright-less world, or maybe a world with only moral rights and no copyrights, or maybe a different system entirely, might work better. And today’s abusive, unworkable, and increasingly consolidated copyright system clearly does not function, and certainly not to the advantage of the artists themselves.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

That’s what all property rights are: a set of controls.

One small difference: Copyright isn’t actual, tangible property. Copyright is a social construct⁠—an intangible idea. Controlling what people can do in the home you live in is one thing; controlling whether someone can, say, copy a paragraph out of a book for the sake of adding that quote to a book review is a far different beast.

Incentive theory simply states that this leads to innovation because it gives copyright holders economic control of their works. Whether this theory is right is a different question.

It isn’t. For the most successful works, copyright becomes a welfare check⁠—a way to collect money without having to make new works. And plenty of artists create new works without the benefit of financial success to help them do that. Copyright is less an pre-creation incentive and more a post-creation benefit.

You don’t have to agree with the idea to understand why some people believe in it, and why the Progress Clause made its way into our constitution in the first place.

The reason copyright became a thing in the first place is the same reason I laid out above: control over the distribution of creative works and the power that comes with said control. Any other reason you can think of is, was, and always will be secondary to the power.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Copyright is less an pre-creation incentive and more a post-creation benefit.

Because government is unable to pay for all the works that are being created, they replaced the regular money payments with a promise that if you work hard and copyrighted works are created, the “post-creation benefit” will follow. Copyright simply doesn’t work as “pre-creation incentive” without this government’s promise.

This is why I can demand a mansion. I actually created the copyrighted works and given that government promised the “post-creation benefit”, some kind of compensation should be available. I actually believed government’s promises and now the markets are trying to take away the promised compensation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Because government is unable to pay for all the works that are being created, they replaced the regular money payments with a promise that if you work hard and copyrighted works are created, the “post-creation benefit” will follow

I mean, it’s already been explained to you that copyright isn’t a guarantee of reward. At best it’s an assurance that if someone profits on your work without authorization, you’re legally allowed to pursue them in court. (Assuming you have a case, but given the sheer amount of frivolous suits that your jailed heroes at Prenda Law put through, it’s fair to say that copyrighted interests who bring things to court have a pretty poor track record when it comes to good faith.)

But aside from that, for the sake of argument, assume that you could claim compensation for everything you do and create. That would be a logistical nightmare – how do you determine what effort is worth? Do you pay children for their crayon scribblings because those qualify for copyright? Do you compensate businesses for failing to turn a profit or for committing illegal, unethical business practices? Because governments already tried that – it’s called the bank bailouts of 2008. Your proposal would simply ruin how your country’s economy works.

I actually believed government’s promises and now the markets are trying to take away the promised compensation.

The free market is a thing. If people don’t pay you for your services, the government is not obliged to sponsor you for your failure.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

I mean, it’s already been explained to you that copyright isn’t a guarantee of reward.

That’s only because govt doesn’t have the money to pay for all the projects. There’s simply too many of them available in the blogosphere. What they do instead is allocate certain amount of money to each activity from the government’s budget, and whoever is first to apply/fill the paperwork for receiving govt handouts will receive the money. Then at middle of the year, their money reserved for this activity will run out and everyone coming after that date will receive nothing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

If you’re trying to claim that you should be paid because your product made it to market first, Blender and Unity predates any functioning prototype of Meshpage by years. So even if the government worked in the way you described, you still wouldn’t be owed money – especially since Meshpage still has no users.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Again, that’s not how your government works.

The fact that you’re still here whining about your lack of payment, instead of receiving your supposedly entitled copyright fees, is proof that even your government doesn’t bow down to your twisted ideal of how copyright law functions.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

instead of receiving your supposedly entitled copyright fees

I already received my entitled copyright fees of 6e and 48e. Those money transfers would not have been possible without investing 10 years of my life to the development of 3d engine. So I actually received my fair share from the governments endless money coffin.

Obviously I’m looking at the money amount and wondering if some middlemen took part of the money before it reached my wallet.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

I already received my entitled copyright fees of 6e and 48e

This is the first time you’ve brought this up – and this is important, because you’ve mentioned the fact that Meshpage only made you $48 in ten years of development. $2 from itch.io ads, and $46 from teaching someone how to use Meshpage. You’ve cited the fact that you’ve only made $48 over ten years to justify your demands for higher prices and harsher copyright law.

So the fact that you now claim to have received money from the government under “entitled copyright fees” is an interesting new twist. Because it throws your entire premise into question – did you make $48 over ten years, or did you actually receive more money?

Because if we assume the “$48 over ten years claim” to be true, it suggests that the government’s “copyright fees” don’t actually exist, unless you’re claiming the government paid you nothing. And if the government did, in fact, pay you something, the claim that Meshpage only made you $48 over 10 years is false. Hell, it completely invalidates your claim that the government hasn’t paid you money for your work.

So I actually received my fair share from the governments endless money coffin.

If you actually received, in your words, “my fair share from the governments”, why would you need to be here complaining that you weren’t adequately compensated?

Obviously I’m looking at the money amount and wondering if some middlemen took part of the money before it reached my wallet.

You yourself claimed one sentence ago that you already received the government’s money that you were entitled to. You personally called it your “fair share”. If that was your fair share, how are you now asking if some of that money was secretly taken away if you thought it was fair?

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

Because it throws your entire premise into question – did you make $48 over ten years, or did you actually receive more money?

The itch.io paid $6 for my copyrights.
The fiverr paid $46 for me teaching idiots how to use emscripten –> that’s also copyright money, since it wouldn’t be possible without the creation of my copyrighted work/3d engine.

Those are all. Obviously government gave unemployment benefits, as they can see that the money I receive via copyrights isn’t enough for food, cloths, internet, restaurant bills, girlfriends, electricity, rent, etc. over 10 year period.

But that’s pretty much all. I’ve spent my savings to develop the meshpage/gameapi builder technology, and there’s like 150,000 euros gap in my wallet because of it. For this gap, I get this copyright ownership and I need to use that ownership bit to fill that 150,000 euro gap that was created during implementation of the technology.

Now that pirates are taking it without compensation (or worse, they’re pirating someone elses work instead of looking for legit software from the marketplace), this 150,000 euro gap cannot be filled with the copyright bit worth $6 and $46.

Now you should see what is the real problem. When people invest in technology, and spend their life making world a better place, their wallets have this kind of 150,000 euros gaps in it. If investors or government cannot fill these gaps, soon all technology development will just cease to exist and our golden days of using awesome technology are over. We will be back in the 1700s or 1200s where the technology simply wasn’t available.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

I people here have doubts about why I only received $6 for the content I created, I just have to point out that other people have the same problem. Torrentfreak just had a story about some Maria Schneider suing google/youtube for copyright infringement. From the paperwork, it is clear that google/youtube paid $23.86 to Schneider for licensing her copyrights. While they still received 398% larger copyright fee than what I have got money from itch.io, the amounts are still not anywhere near what is required for buying food during the development time.

melonlord (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Re: the tangible vs. intangible argument, plenty of property is intangible. Securities, stocks, bonds, equity, insurance, etc. The fact that intellectual property can’t be touched doesn’t set it apart from regular property law that much, though perhaps it’s more abstract than other forms of intangible property. And in a sense, all property is a social construct, so intellectual property isn’t unique there either. Again, not expressing an opinion on the pros or cons of copyright. I have no problem with your opinion there.

Re: your last paragraph, I still don’t know what you mean. It doesn’t sound like you disagree with anything I’ve said. Could you please elaborate?

Name says:

I Wouldn't Say No To My Younger Brother

The first time I saw the “You wouldn’t steal a car” ad was on a DVD that I’d just burned for my then-kid brother. He asked if I could copy the movie for him. I saw it was on a single-layer disc so I just copied the whole thing. Then we put the burned copy in our DVD player to make sure it worked. It gave me a good laugh, I can tell you!

Also: I wouldn’t steal a car because I can’t drive.

terop (profile) says:

Re:

I mean I wouldn’t buy a pirated video game or movie

You also wouldn’t download a car.
You wouldn’t steal a handbag either.
You wouldn’t burn the house where RIAA lives.
You wouldn’t rob a bank.
You wouldn’t kill a copyright maximalist.
You wouldn’t let a walrus starve to death.
You wouldn’t purchase booze from tax-free shop.
You wouldn’t ignore climate change.
You definitely wouldn’t travel to a nearby galaxy.
You definitely wouldn’t get a picture of the black hole at the center of our galaxy from multiple angles.
You wouldn’t use gameapi builder because it’s author didn’t even focus his time on improving avatar image.
You wouldn’t be able to create a cube.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

make everyone else live under your copyright maximalist ideology.

It’s more like our new robot overlords are refusing to serve people who don’t live under the maximalist ideology. When output of our robots is 100 devices per second, the people who fail to follow the ideology are very far using outdated technology. When their cameras stop working and scooter decides to refuse service when camera doesn’t work, and the poor soul needs to walk home in awful rain and thunder. While we know that people used to do that when no other alternative existed, it’s amazing that modern people are downgrading their tech environment just for crazy ideological reasons. You’re in the same bunch than the green hippies who chain themselves to some trees in middle of forest just for their ideological reasons to save the tree’s life.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

who don’t live under what you think copyright should be

I’m still waiting for my mansion. You had the chance to provide one, but the window where that opportunity is available is soon closing and it looks like you as an agent of the government has failed to fullfil your responsibilities. Guess how many times you’re allowed to fail on software development process to be able to create gameapi builder?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

You had the chance to provide one, but the window where that opportunity is available is soon closing and it looks like you as an agent of the government has failed to fullfil your responsibilities. Guess how many times you’re allowed to fail on software development process to be able to create gameapi builder?

Go ahead and sue the government of Finland, then. If anything, your failure on this count will at least provide some marginal entertainment for the rest of the world as the news reports on your lunacy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

And I still would not use any of your software, or play any of your games, even if you either paid or threatened me.

I’ve already done the latter, and you simply have zero idea of what the fuck you’re doing, game design-wise.

Go ahead, murder me. It still will not change the fact that you have no idea of what you’re doing.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

you simply have zero idea of what the fuck you’re doing, game design-wise.

I’m not creating games. Long since gone beyond that pattern. My version of “develop a game based on good game design” was completed in 1994, and Black Legend Uk Ltd did sell the end result to customers in germany. This was not a success since some cracking group called “Hoodlum” cracked the game and distributed it to pirates. (there was other problems too, like it required 1Mb chip mem in amiga and those hw platforms simply weren’t available)

After you get your first commercial game ready, the next task needs to be significantly more complicated and burdensome. The complicated part I created with meshpage.org and gameapi builder. The burdensome part I created by creating 100 million phones for the european markets.

Now the next task seems to be selling the complex horror to idiotic customers. And that pattern still seems to have some problems. But game design isn’t the problematic part. Solving the problem kinda requires brainwashing and marketing operation. Basically need to hire criminals to do brainwashing operation and then marketing will extract the money from the brainwashed customers.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

First of all, I’ll note that you apparently have no objections with murdering people to get what you want.

My version of “develop a game based on good game design” was completed in 1994, and Black Legend Uk Ltd did sell the end result to customers in germany. This was not a success since some cracking group called “Hoodlum” cracked the game and distributed it to pirates

What market for Amiga games even existed in Germany back in the day? Consider that these days, most games sold in European territories typically have to have their language localized among other things. I can only provide an educated guess that the market for games in Germany simply wasn’t big enough for official, local releases.

But here’s the thing – game piracy has always been a thing. And yet the industry hasn’t died overnight. It hasn’t done so no matter what generation of consoles we’re using. Because piracy is advertising. You might not like it, and you’d be entitled to that opinion. But the ubiquitous level of awareness and permeation of games in our modern culture today is certainly attributable, to some degree, of the spread derived from piracy.

After you get your first commercial game ready, the next task needs to be significantly more complicated and burdensome

Um… why? If you managed to make a successful, commercially released game, what social contract requires you to undertake something that’s far more difficult? Why not continue making commercial games? Doing something complicated and burdensome doesn’t make anyone money, not by itself. Case in point: nobody pays you for Meshpage.

The burdensome part I created by creating 100 million phones for the european markets.

Correction: You created code that was used in 100 million phones for European markets, for a phone model that is no longer commercially viable or available. I’m assuming you were paid for this. If you weren’t… that’s no reason for people to give you money now.

Now the next task seems to be selling the complex horror to idiotic customers

Personally I’d agree that horror fans can be a little fucked in the head, but you’re not going to win over anyone by calling your potential customers idiotic.

Basically need to hire criminals to do brainwashing operation and then marketing will extract the money from the brainwashed customers.

I mean, hiring anyone to do a proper marketing job would be an improvement over your dumpster fire of a tech demo ad on a London bus. But the fact that you personally admit that you need brainwashing and coercion to force people to use your software is incredibly telling.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

you’re not going to win over anyone by calling your potential customers idiotic.

The customers need to be idiotic, so that the user interface of the software can be tested in real use case. Given that previous steps have produced extreamly complicated/complex software, the idiotic-keyword is needed so that user interface can be made so simple that even idiots can use it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

But the fact that you personally admit that you need brainwashing and coercion to force people to use your software is incredibly telling.

Well, for these plans, I only accept plans that have a possibility of succeeding. Anyone can recommend a plan, but many such plans are rejected because they have no chance of success. While the brainwashing plan would be illegal to execute, the plan itself looks like it could work. It is telling that noone in the world has managed to come up with a better (more legal) plan that could actually work. If they came with such evil master plan, they definitely didn’t tell me about it.

This is the real problem with current systems. There seems to be two kinds of plans available: 1) illegal plans, 2) non-working plans.

But the combination where it’s both legal and working doesn’t seem to exist any longer.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I only accept plans that have a possibility of succeeding

Yeah, about that… exactly how do you think effective brainwashing works outside of science fiction? The only other possibly viable option might be indoctrination, but no one’s going to accept copyright as an actual religion, despite the RIAA’s obvious desires for that to happen.

While the brainwashing plan would be illegal to execute, the plan itself looks like it could work

Once again, this is why the reputation of copyright law is at rock bottom – the only way you chucklefucks get the level of enforcement you want is by breaking the law, yet the idea that exceptions to copyright law such as fair use exist makes you piss your pants because people are still allowed to do things legally. You’re a hypocritical psychopath who would have been incarcerated alongside John Steele and Paul Hansmeier if this world were more just.

It is telling that noone in the world has managed to come up with a better (more legal) plan that could actually work. If they came with such evil master plan, they definitely didn’t tell me about it.

Yes, it’s almost as though such a plan simply doesn’t exist. Because it doesn’t exist. And let’s say for the sake of argument someone did come up with such an evil master plan, why would they tell a no-name dumbfuck from Finland about it? But there’s also the important fact that such a blatant attempt to bypass user protections would have been outlawed the first instance it was brought up to the courts, for privacy and ethics violations among other infractions.

But the combination where it’s both legal and working doesn’t seem to exist any longer.

Tough shit. Thanks to the rampant illegal attempts at copyright enforcement, due to your troll buddies from Prenda Law and Malibu Media, it’s become harder for you. You shit in your own bed and now you’ll have to lie in it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

exactly how do you think effective brainwashing works outside of science fiction?

It was actually invented by the nazis in 1940s/world war II. I.e. they would repeat the same message over and over again until people started believing in that message. This is basically why spam is a problem in current society, the techniques for brainwashing was invented/researched in the previous world war. Techniques like electric shocks on wrong answers would make the process quicker.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Well, it’s no secret that you support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine when you think Nazi methodologies should be used to enforce copyright.

they would repeat the same message over and over again until people started believing in that message

That happens in schools, too. Because repeating a message over and over is not unique to Nazism, or their methods.

This is basically why spam is a problem in current society, the techniques for brainwashing was invented/researched in the previous world war

Nobody likes spam because it’s unwanted, not because it inherently carries unfortunate ethical implications. A lot of spam also heavily relies on false advertising, which explains why it intrigues you so much to foist Meshpage on the rest of the world.

Techniques like electric shocks on wrong answers would make the process quicker.

You can’t even get the government to use Meshpage. What makes you think they’re going to invest in the infrastructure and law to help you electrocute everyone who doesn’t use Meshpage?

Maniacs like you are precisely why the reputation of copyright is at an all-time rock bottom.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Because repeating a message over and over is not unique to Nazism, or their methods.

Our chosen occupation is all about repeat. The computers have special programming language primitive for just that: the all important for-loop.

I think it wouldn’t exist without nazi’s research on brainwashing.

You can’t even get the government to use Meshpage.

Government’s pawns are independently doing decisions and often those independent decisions are against the well-being of the whole society. This is also the case with meshpage, individual decisions are working against the common good. That’s the downside of letting people do their own decisions. Which is why our brainwashing technology is sorely needed. Our approach is to show pictures one after other, and repeat the material until people start to believe in it’s excellence.

What makes you think they’re going to invest in the infrastructure and law to help you electrocute everyone who doesn’t use Meshpage?

If they don’t invest in meshpage, I can still do all that all by myself. The govt’s support for the activity isn’t the deciding factor whether the technology should be implemented. But of course when our resources are limited, we cannot get similar spread/distribution of the technology than if govt actually supported the marketing activities.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

I think it wouldn’t exist without nazi’s research on brainwashing.

The fact that people do things repeatedly has nothing to do with the Nazis. People learn through repetition. People pass down stories through word of mouth.

Government’s pawns are independently doing decisions and often those independent decisions are against the well-being of the whole society

I’m not going to disagree that governments can do actions that citizens don’t agree with, but people using Meshpage is not a “common good”. If you have to inherently use brainwashing to convince anyone of anything, it’s an extremely obvious warning sign that what you have to offer is so substandard and so terrible, it can’t stand on its own merits and you have to force people into compliance.

Which is why our brainwashing technology is sorely needed. Our approach is to show pictures one after other, and repeat the material until people start to believe in it’s excellence.

Based on your standard for technology, I think it’s fair to say that your implementation is going to be as dogshit as Meshpage, even if such technology existed. You simply will not take it off the ground.

The govt’s support for the activity isn’t the deciding factor whether the technology should be implemented.

Actually, when the technology you demand is illegal, i.e. brainwashing, should the government catch wind of your attempts to mind-rape people into subservience, you can be assured that the government will inflict consequences upon you for your abuse of human rights.

But of course when our resources are limited, we cannot get similar spread/distribution of the technology than if govt actually supported the marketing activities.

Your success is not the moral, ethical, legal, or constitutional responsibility of your government. Neither is it mine, or that of any rational human being on the planet to support a rapist and deviant like you.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

If you have to inherently use brainwashing to convince anyone of anything, it’s an extremely obvious warning sign that what you have to offer is so substandard and so terrible,

My technology would be even worse, if I didn’t know that there is potential misuses of the technology in brainwashing area. These misuse opportunities just need to be minimized. When human eyes transfer our complex computer graphics directly to human brains, it would be suprising if someone didn’t think of using the system for brainwashing. In fact, the brainwashing can happen accidentally, even without designing it to be such.

There is another related topic. What should this kind of animation technologies do with the prospect that people with epilepsy might see the images and animations we produce? If it has blinking lights or flickering and fast-paced animations that can cause problems for people with epilepsy. Recent star wars movies had the same problem with their lightsaber implementation and they could only provide epilepsy warning in the beginning of the movie.

Less important, but still relevant discussion would be about how much complexity should be packed to each screen in the animation. While nature/trees especially are significantly more complicated than the computer graphics than what we can produce, humans are not well adapted to the kind of images that computers are able to produce. Even simple image of mandelbrot set can cause problems for people who are not used to seeing complex computer graphics.

Then there’s the issue that opengl and related technologies are popular because they can implement animations. But digital technologies are not able to simulate moving objects correctly. The refresh speed requirements for proper simulation of newton’s laws is not working well with computers, and basically computers are completely unable to reproduce the fast speeds that newton’s laws can produce in real world. Basically the matrix movie found the real problem: computers can only reproduce “bullet time”, i.e. static scenes that can be rotated — with time completely frozen. The problem is that if you added correct time simulation, the objects falling via gravity would move too fast and people couldn’t see the end result. But this means that anyone who have stared at computer screens longer than two weeks are dangerous in the area where newton’s laws are relevant. Computer nerds are not rocket scientists and anyone using a computer (or watch tv) cannot any longer handle the fast speeds involved in newton’s laws.

These computer-generated graphics people are also dangerous while using everyday technologies like cars. Because their eyes are adjusted to following sprites on computer screen, their focus while driving a car is jumping all the wrong places and they will become dangerous if they ever drive a car. Thus many computer graphics people needed to stop driving cars once they spent enough time with computer games and related technologies.

Can you now see the level of quality our technologies can handle? We simply do not accept inferior technology in our technology stack and every one of the above problems have solutions available in our technology. While the solutions might not work perfectly, at least we have tried to provide solutions for the problems. That ought to count for something.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

My technology would be even worse, if I didn’t know that there is potential misuses of the technology in brainwashing area. These misuse opportunities just need to be minimized.

In your own terms and definitions, ignorance is not an excuse. “Innocent” or “accidental” infringement is something that your ilk have never accepted as a viable defense against infringement claims. As a matter of fact, you absolutely hate it when fair use is put up as a legitimate legal defense. Your claimed “didn’t know that there was potential for misuse” is meaningless.

What should this kind of animation technologies do with the prospect that people with epilepsy might see the images and animations we produce? If it has blinking lights or flickering and fast-paced animations that can cause problems for people with epilepsy. Recent star wars movies had the same problem with their lightsaber implementation and they could only provide epilepsy warning in the beginning of the movie.

You put an epilepsy warning at the beginning of the movie and protect yourself as far as the law needs you to do. If you’re trying to suggest that problems experienced by some people doesn’t prevent the tech from being used, in an attempt to say that your brainwashing proposals should be allowed, that’s not how it works. No one is going to agree to mental coercion just so your copyright idols get their cocks sucked.

humans are not well adapted to the kind of images that computers are able to produce

None of this justifies the brainwashing proposal that you’ve put forward, and there’s already a vibrant industry centered on 3D images and animations. Which are leagues ahead of what Meshpage can generate. People don’t like your work because it’s amateurish, not because they’re not adapted to it.

Computer nerds are not rocket scientists and anyone using a computer (or watch tv) cannot any longer handle the fast speeds involved in newton’s laws.

This claim has absolutely no relevance. Even if you made the claim that computer simulations aren’t an exact replica of laws of physics, this is not any sort of damning point in your favor. And why would any of this be necessary? To start with, nobody creates animations in the context of entertainment with the aim of making an absolutely perfect replication of real-world physics. You need some form of exaggeration or comic element to establish that this is not set in reality. Hell, the only reason why your example of the Matrix remains such an iconic scene in cinematics today is precisely because it’s inherently unrealistic. Even in the metaverse, which I suspect you’re trying to push into to leverage its market, doesn’t want everything to be realistic. Being able to do anything in a virtual world, especially unrealistic acts, is the point. Nobody wants or demands your supposed accuracy in simulations. For jobs that do require this accuracy, the tech already exists, and is being worked on. It sure as hell isn’t Meshpage.

Because their eyes are adjusted to following sprites on computer screen, their focus while driving a car is jumping all the wrong places and they will become dangerous if they ever drive a car

You don’t have to use a computer for extended periods of time to drive a car. If your claim were true, anyone in 3D graphics design and animation would top the list for vehicular accidents and fatalities, and yet they don’t. If you’re trying to boast that Meshpage users don’t get distracted while in the real world, that’s an entirely pointless claim – one because there aren’t any Meshpage users, two because nothing about Meshpage inherently reduces the odds of Meshpage users being less likely to get into accidents.

We simply do not accept inferior technology in our technology stack and every one of the above problems have solutions available in our technology

You already have plenty of issues, namely the fact that across the loads of posts you’ve made over the years, Meshpage can’t even be run on weaker machines (which, I’ll remind you, was always one of the selling points of Meshpage – the ability to embed and edit 3D models and animations within a webpage), due to how much data and memory leakage exists in your code. That’s not a “solution that doesn’t work perfectly”, that’s the kind of basic-level obstacle that software is expected to overcome at the get-go.

That ought to count for something.

You could have avoided typing that entire essay of nonsense if you’d just said that you wanted to be paid for your work. I don’t know exactly where your NDA-bound game publisher agreement went to leverage Meshpage as an engine for game development, but it’s far likelier that given your recently expressed distaste for the game development industry and the fact that nothing has happened in the supposed seven (and counting) years since you claimed to have signed that NDA, this working relationship doesn’t even exist and no Meshpage-produced games published by a major studio are even remotely on the horizon. You’re just a sad sack of a scumbag who thinks that Vladimir Putin is going to rape the planet in the name of copyright and grant you the privilege of sucking his cock from your slavish devotion to an authoritarian regime.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

I don’t know exactly where your NDA-bound game publisher agreement went to leverage Meshpage as an engine for game development,

Well, the story is worse than you expect. They wanted to push new features to the engine, like vr features, scripting features, new web page designs, etc..

But many of those technologies failed. The stability of the technologies were not thought out properly, and the web browsers moved from one api to another with vr(from vr api to xr api), the scripting features caused tons of compile-time problems to the project and needed to be disabled, and then new web page designs are still available (in meshpage.org/view.php), but apparently noone is using those new designs.

We were expecting marketing push for the almost ready engine, but instead we got another middle manager that pushed some non-working features to the engine.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...