Canada Steals Cultural Works From The Public By Extending Copyright Terms

from the stealing-from-the-public dept

We’ve said this before and we’ll say it again: it cannot make sense to extend copyright terms retroactively. The entire point of copyright law is to provide a limited monopoly on making copies of the work as an incentive to get the work produced. Assuming the work was produced, that says that the bargain that was struck was clearly enough of an incentive for the creator. They were told they’d receive that period of exclusivity and thus they created the work.

Going back and retroactively extending copyright then serves no purpose. Creators need no incentive for works already created. The only thing it does is steal from the public. That’s because the “deal” setup by governments creating copyright terms is between the public (who is temporarily stripped of their right to share knowledge freely) and the creator. But if we extend copyright term retroactively, the public then has their end of the bargain (“you will be free to share these works freely after such-and-such a date”) changed, with no recourse or compensation.

That makes no sense.

And yet, countries keep doing it.

Canada has quietly done it: extending copyrights on literary, dramatic or musical works and engravings from life of the author plus 50 years year to life of the author plus 70 years.

Quietly on November 17, 2022, and appearing online this morning, an Order in Council was issued on behalf of Her Excellency the Governor General, on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to fix December 30, 2022 as the day Bill C-19, Division 16 of Part 5 comes into force. What does this all mean? With the passing of Bill C-19 this past June, the Copyright Act was amended to extend the term of copyright for literary, dramatic or musical works and engravings to life of the author plus a period of 70 years following the end of the calendar year in which that author dies. What was unclear at the time of royal assent was WHEN exactly this would come into force — if on or after January 1, 2023, one more year of works would enter the public domain. Unfortunately, we now know that this date has been fixed as December 30, 2022, meaning that no new works will enter the Canadian public domain for the next 20 years.

This should be a huge scandal. The public has been stripped of its rights to share information for twenty years. Based on what? Literally nothing, but demands from heirs of deceased authors to continue to receive subsidies from the very public they just stripped the rights from.

It is beyond ridiculous that any country in the world is extending copyright in this day and age, rather than decreasing it.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

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 “Canada Steals Cultural Works From The Public By Extending Copyright Terms”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
245 Comments
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

20-year retroactive term extension ratchet

Not too long ago, Japan also retroactively extended their ©’s by 20 years. The US did in 1998, but stopped there. If you go back further, this started with the European Union’s Copyright Duration Directive in 1993. As much as we blame Disney, money in politics, and Sonny Bono for the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (and they did have a hand, don’t get me wrong), I honestly think the prime mover of all these retroactive 20-year term extension ratchet laws was the first law in the European Union and was later spread around the world to “harmonize” copyright terms. If you want to know why copyright length ever goes in one direction, that’s why.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

I honestly think the prime mover of all these retroactive 20-year term extension ratchet laws was the first law in the European Union

And if you think that was all on the hands of EU lawmakers, with absolutely no input from major corporations, I’ve got a bridge in the Sahara that you might be interested in buying.

Ricardo says:

Re:

The original owners and inheritors of those IPs are already dead, those exploiting the extended rights are the publishing companies. Yes, harmonization (standarization of copyrights laws and terms) is the first step towards a worldwide administration, with a centralized management, directly influenced by the corporations that generates the most valuable IP assets in terms of tax returns. Content in the Public Domain doesn’t generate signigicant tax returns as it is free. And it can’t be controlled. A centralized management, controling worldwide content publishing and distribution is the real motive, and apart of entertainment content, the actual focus is mostly on news feeds and educational content, turned into propaganda and adoctrination tools.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'You broke the deal first, I'm just responding in kind.'

Do you want to erode any respect the public has for copyright and create a society where copyright infringement is not only seen as perfectly acceptable but morally justifiable to the point that that mindset is applied to copyright owners that are still alive?

Because that is how you do that.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Might as well make it a Million Gagillion years

Life of the author + 70 years means effectively you cannot use ANY works from a creator if you are alive when the creator is alive.

With rapidly changing digital formats, it makes it even that much easier for orphaned works, or works the ‘owner’ determines to have no value, to be lost forever.

It would be so much easier to just say if a work is created by someone who doesn’t explicitly put it in the Public Domain (or some of the CCs), then it can never be used by anyone else for any reason, forever.

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

Re: Re:

Make no mistake: Corporations would absolutely push to have copyright terms last forever and a day if they thought they could get away with it. That they can’t is the only reason they don’t.

I’m reminded of a rather pertinent quote from Mary Bono, a prominent supporter of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998:

Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti’s proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.

Corporations won’t be satisfied until they own our culture in its entirety.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Streaming is what I’m referring to.

And that strange niche from Japan known as Virtual Youtubers.

Nintendo has basically forced content creators on Youtube, Twitch and a few other Japan-based services to only stream and/or create content on those services, and have heavily hinted at not allowing other forms of donations.

I am fine with not using Nintendo’s trademarks on a content creator’s products; that is a fair compromise. But what I’m not okay with how Nintendo controls even the monetization aspect that even streaming services are forced to tapdance to Nintendo’s tune.

Then again, who am I to criticize Nintendo’s policies? I’m just some asshole and the company with more money, sales and reputation is always correct and I should not fucking dare criticize and be happy that the big company deigns to share their fucking profits with me.

ECA (profile) says:

But, who gets the money?

The Artist or the publisher?
The Creator or the Manufacturer?
The Family? For 3 generations??
A bunch of lazy people living off of great great grandfathers Money?

It wouldnt be so bad if all the Book HAD to be published EACH YEAR or loose the rights.
It wouldnt be to bad if the devices/toys/this and that were Built each year, and SOLD.
How many of these are Just to hold something in a safe, that will never get out into the wild.
How many copyrights are on 1 car? TONS. And other types of engines are held in safes, Never to be used, until they HAVE run out of time on the Current Rights.

Look up Dubai LED lights. The King had a wish to make Better, cheaper, Longer lasting LED lights for his people. REAL LED lights that WILL last 20 year, use 1/3 the power we use for LED lights in the USA, Just as bright. $5 per bulb.
Cant get them anywhere else.

Anonymous Coward says:

it cannot make sense to extend copyright terms retroactively. […] Assuming the work was produced, that says that the bargain that was struck was clearly enough of an incentive for the creator.

I agree with most of the post. This should be a scandal, and copyright extensions—retroactive or otherwise—make even less sense than copyright itself. We should be talking about reducing it to something like 3 years, or abolishing it entirely.

But, in financial mathematics, one can assign value to a possible event. It happens all the time with interest rate predictions. In other words, one might have determined a probability of term extension (or reduction?) and calculated a present value accordingly when considering the “incentive”. Of course, this probably didn’t happen, and could only really “tip the scale” at the absolute boundaries—based on the very very low probability that any copyrighted item is making any significant income after some decades. Still, “cannot” is not quite correct.

Anonymous Coward says:

The public has been stripped of its rights to share information for twenty years. Based on what? Literally nothing, but demands from heirs of deceased authors to continue to receive subsidies from the very public they just stripped the rights from.

Nope. Not based on nothing but demands from heirs. Most heirs of copyrighted works would be up in arms if they knew, or wouldn’t care one way or the other.

The blame for this falls directly at the feet of the US government. Life+70 was a condition of “trade normalizations” between the two countries. It has absolutely nothing to do with Canadian content. It has to do with US content expiring in Canada 20 years before it does in the US.

Rico R. (profile) says:

Re:

Yeah, because heaven forbid a Canadian artist export something based on something in their public domain to the US while it’s still under copyright in the US… This really is a distinction without a difference. Whether it’s because of trade agreements (which have no business dealing with copyright anyway) or because some rich family wants to continue collecting royalties from their ancestor’s creations for a longer period of time, there’s no good reason to extend copyright retroactively for another 20 years. I’d suggest following the US’s lead in an attempt to fix this problem, but that’s really just the whims of an insurrection-supporting senator trying to punish one media conglomerate for (checks notes) “being too woke”.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re:

The blame for this falls directly at the feet of the US government. Life+70 was a condition of “trade normalizations” between the two countries. It has absolutely nothing to do with Canadian content. It has to do with US content expiring in Canada 20 years before it does in the US.

It takes two to tango. Justin Trudeau is just as guilty as Donald Trump for the Trade Agreement that retroactively extended ©.

Besides, there’s content that is public domain in Canada that is still ©’d in the US, such as Janis Joplin’s and Jimi Hendrix’s oeuvre.

Crafty Coyote says:

As if this really means anything to a determined Canadian pirate. They, and their brethren all over the world, will continue to make copies of the forgotten items of culture, and risk whatever the penalty for theft in their jurisdiction is. If death threats or jail couldn’t stop the publication of important works, then why should the threat of bad laws stop attempts at preserving culture?

Anonymous Coward says:

There used to be a time when Canada was markedly more rational in their approach to copyright. By and large there was no widespread litigation campaign like the US experienced in the height of music downloads making the news; Canadian label Nettwerk even went so far as to defend a Texan girl accused of downloading Avril Lavigne songs. Personal downloads that were clearly not for profit were not pursued with the level of venom and vitriol that could be expected if they occurred in the US. You could still count on Michael Geist having a voice at the podium and a seat at the table.

These days, not so much. Geist still has to worry about copyright trolling spreading its roots across the border, which shows very little signs of stopping under current management.

Anonymous Coward says:

“The public has been stripped of its rights to share information for twenty years.”

What rights? George Carlin said “Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away” He has a point, dont you think? Should the “rights” be appropriately called privileges?

The fact that the Canadian government is passing this law quietly is because they know it is unpopular with the public. So why they are passing it? it’s likely because undue interference in Canadian politics by the American economical bully which is typical. I believe the copyright cultists in the USTR office had a hand in this law behind the scenes.

I believe Canada would not have passed such laws if they did not have the U.S. interfering with Canada’s native cultural policies. Canada historically wanted to go a different way with their “private copying”, pay a tax for it, but the USTR won’t have that and decided to label Canada “pirate haven” for that. Anyone still remember this?

Is Canada still on special 301?

https://www.ipjustice.org/digital-rights/ip-justice-requests-ustr-take-canada-off-the-special-301-naughty-list/

If Canada is still on special 301 for nonconformity to US “intellectual property” regime, maybe this is why they are passing this law- as a part of a deal with the USTR to get off the list? If Canada is off already, maybe the reason is because Canada was threatened by the USTR to be put back on the special 301 list if they dont pass this law?

I believe the true huge scandal is not that the Canadian government is passing this law, it is the U.S. bullying other countries to confirm to its “intellectual property” regime.

If the American government does not give a shit over free speech for its own people with its ignoring the First Amendment where Copyright is concerned, you know the thing about Congress shall not pass laws that abridge freedom of speech, you expect the American government is going to give a shit over free speech for people in other countries where Americas’s “intellectual property” regime is concerned?

The Trudeau Liberals might be willing to fight the U.S. over Canada’s dairy cartel, but over “IP” stuff? Nope. Never heard of them fighting the U.S. over that. After all, they still are the same cowards they were when they broke their electional promise to implement a proportional voting system a few years ago.

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

Retroactive copyright is indeed theft. A deal was made with the public – you create the work, the public gives you exclusive right to that work before it reverts to the public domain, as every artwork you used for inspiration has or will. When the work was created, this deal was good enough for both side.

Retroactively extending this is breaking the deal, and stealing from the public domain, often against the wishes of the original creator (who, by the definition of the life+X years definition cannot argue against the change to the deal they went to the grave believing they’d made).

Just another land grab by corporations wishing to bleed out a few more drops of money from the works they consider valuable at the expense of everyone who wishes to access the works they don’t consider commercially viable.

Drew Wilson (user link) says:

"A Huge Scandal"

“This should be a huge scandal.”

In ordinary circumstances where there isn’t a whole lot of tech issues to be upset about, this would easily take centre stage in Canada as a major scandal. The problem is that the Canadian government has been pushing Bill C-11 (social media censorship), Bill C-18 (link taxes), and the forthcoming online harms bill ($10 million fines, mass internet censorship, etc.). Up here, we are witnessing a massive war on the open internet in general by the Canadian government.

When the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press is on the line, unfortunately, copyright term extension seems like a minor problem by comparison. I’m still up to my neck with all the things the Senate has been up to with Bill C-11 and I barely had time to cover the link tax legislation which is currently working its way through the House of Commons. I’m in the process of being run ragged with all the things going in on in Canada – and it’s impossible to keep up with all the details these days. There is nothing normal about that.

Anonymous Coward says:

There’s another aspect to this that I think large corporate rights holders consider.If copyrights start to expire, not only will content that they own become available for free, but there is a lot of content out there. A lot of good content.

There is so much media that has been made that if a sufficient number of years worth of it enters the public domain, there would be more than you could consume in a lifetime. And good content remains good, even if it is dated. Stories surrounding the human condition remain relevant.

So now content creators would be competing with all of this free, good content to get people to consume it. I don’t know about anyone else, but there’s been an awful lot of bad to mediocre content being created recently, and I’d just as soon watch some old, famously good content instead. Our leisure time is basically a zero sum game, and it is rather hard to compete with both free and good.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Exactly, considering that Valve and Epic have made money competing with free, and considering Kickstarter and Bandcamp, there are people who would purchase something despite it being freely shareable. People have done so with my creative-commons-licensed work, and there are (at least) two artists on Polyvinyl Records who license their music with creative commons licenses: Jeff Rosenstock and Anamanaguchi.

Not being able to compete with free just means that your product sucks.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

The article is completely bogus...

Creators need no incentive for works already created.

This isn’t true. Creator’s lives are not ended at the same date when their work becomes finished. In fact, that’s when the hard work of marketing and trying to sell the product starts. The copyright term needs to be as long as it takes for authors to recoup their investment in the works. If the markets are killing author’s money sources and keeping them starving, the copyright terms need to be longer. Copyright term’s only purpose is to indicate the time it takes on average to recoup the investment done for copyrighted works. If it takes 70 years time to do it on average, it’s significant risk for authors that decide to create those works. They have to starve first for 50 years and then maybe one day their efforts on creating the works becomes advanced enough that markets will gladly accept the end result.

But it’s always a risk to become an author. 70 years is plenty of time to think about your career choices, and if money is not appearing to your doorsteps, are you going to wait one year more or change your activity to something more profitable/possibly become criminal with millions of money available.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Well, it was inevitable for Mr. “I hate the public domain” to show up again, so here we go.

The copyright term needs to be as long as it takes for authors to recoup their investment in the works.

If this was the only function of copyright, you’re claiming that you need 70 years longer than a human’s lifespan to recover any of your investment. In that case, literally nothing would get made. No business-minded person would invest in something that only pays out decades after they’ve become a corpse.

I get that copyright extremists like you can only achieve ejaculation with silly claims like this, but they simply don’t mesh out with how the world works.

If the markets are killing author’s money sources and keeping them starving, the copyright terms need to be longer.

How would extending copyright for twenty years after you’ve already died get you paid now? Even if you made your money by suing innocent people under false copyright claims, an extension of twenty years will not have any effect on your entitled statutory damages. They’re not going to magically increase.

The only thing taking things out of the public domain would do is increase the number of works that can be sued over, which you would not be licensed to sue over unless you somehow claim the creation rights to content made by corpses that are a century old at this point.

They have to starve first for 50 years and then maybe one day their efforts on creating the works becomes advanced enough that markets will gladly accept the end result.

Authors do not starve for 50 years. Again, this is a doomsday scenario popular among copyright fearmongers like you, but reality simply does not pan out that way. There are a significant number of authors who don’t starve until they’re over fifty years old.

70 years is plenty of time to think about your career choices, and if money is not appearing to your doorsteps, are you going to wait one year more or change your activity to something more profitable/possibly become criminal with millions of money available.

You’ve been thinking about your career choices for over 30, and the best that you’ve come up with is organ harvesting people for not worshipping copyright the way you do, and converting Meshpage into an NFT project long after NFTs have had any sort of profitability or relevance.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

He’s made the claim before that one of Meshpage’s capabilities will be to use it as an NFT generator, and/or promising to bundle Meshpage instructions with/as an NFT just so people will have to download it. Not use the software, not figure out how to use the software, not even how any of this will be remotely useful (so, in a sense, exactly like NFTs) or profitable. You could at least sell off an NFT to a bigger fool. You can’t do that with Meshpage, because as far as can be gleaned, Meshpage doesn’t even have that capability. It’s literally “download this free software and I pinky promise you’ll benefit despite all appearances to the contrary”.

Tero Pulkinnen isn’t a cryptobro. He’s namedropping as a cryptobro thinking that it makes him look good, despite history consistently indicating otherwise, including very recent events involving fraud. But it’s not surprising terop’s isn’t aware of this. He’s a self-absorbed psychopath who openly admits to his smoldering disdain for other humans.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

you fucking idiot people can already do that without you

The 2 billion 2d web sites on the planet says otherwise.

If they actually could do it, there would be more 3d available in the web. But that has not happened, and thus the conclusion is that they have technical blockers in their quest to bring 3d to the web. Meshpage is all about removing these technical blockers and let users do beautiful 3d graphics and bring web to the next level of technological progress.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

You can keep trying to obfuscate the definitions of what 3D on the Internet means. As of today, websites have no problems displaying 3D graphics or renders online. What you initially claimed – the ability to, in real time, modify and render 3D models and animations on a browser, is a significant undertaking that provides intangible benefit which only you have been able to convince yourself so far.

And again, why would this matter? In your own words, you intend to move value out of the Internet. Why would the Internet matter to you if you keep insisting that what you want is to remove value from it?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

In your own words, you intend to move value out of the Internet.

That’s web3’s feature, not meshpage’s.

But assuming I believe head on web3’s marketing messages, it just moves the valuable stuff to behind paywalls. There will be part of the web users who cannot access the technology, but other people (with money) are figuring out how to unlock those features, and web as a whole will benefit when they find a way to do that.

Why would the Internet matter to you if you keep insisting that what you want is to remove value from it?

Google started the trend of moving value away from internet and filling it with adverticement messages instead. And all the valuable stuff is behind their paywall which can be accessed by clicking the adverticement banner located in many existing web sites.

So following the trend, web3 did the same for NFT’s.

And meshpage wants web3’s feature that there is money flow from end users to author’s bank account. Thus some web3 practices should be used to enable this feature. And hiding valuable stuff behind paywall might be one of the solutions.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

But assuming I believe head on web3’s marketing messages, it just moves the valuable stuff to behind paywalls. There will be part of the web users who cannot access the technology, but other people (with money) are figuring out how to unlock those features, and web as a whole will benefit when they find a way to do that.

This is not nearly what Web 3.0 is intended for at all, assuming anything can be gleaned from the snake oil that Web 3.0 shysters are attempting to put forth. Web 3.0 advocates imagine a hyperconnected utopia where everything you do in the real world, you can integrate online, fast and secure. Paywalls are nothing more than the traditional, corporate method of squeezing every last penny from a random loser on the street just because they can.

Hell, if paywalls are what you got out of a Web 3.0 spiel, why aren’t you putting Meshpage behind a paywall?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

So regular users don’t even know that a paywall exists, then. How is that… helpful to anyone? If you don’t tell users more features can be unlocked by paying, exactly what motivates them to give you money? Because “funding Tero Pulkinnen” is not going to be a top priority for them.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

if you don’t tell users more features can be unlocked by paying, exactly what motivates them to give you money?

well, current situation is that they can’t even get a cube to the screen with the builder tool, so they might not need those additional features. I’ll just ensure that once users learn to use builder, I have additional features in line for release to the crowds.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

So you crippled your own kindergartener-friendly software, then.

Its not for kindergartener level. There’s some features that make it unsuitable at that level:
1) the user interface is too complicated
2) you need to understand graph data structure that is teached at university
3) the builder tool requires hosting setup to be available
4) 3d graphics tools like blender have generally be too difficult for that level children.

I’m more aiming at high school level children.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Its not for kindergartener level. There’s some features that make it unsuitable at that level

In other words, from the very beginning when you claimed that you intended your software for kindergarteners, you lied.

I’m more aiming at high school level children.

So why aren’t you testing your software with high schoolers?

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

The 2 billion 2d web sites on the planet says otherwise.

.. says nobody with the capacity to comprehend how proof works, ever.

What do you think a proof is? According to Curry-Howard Isomorphism, every piece of software implementation has ability to prove the type of the function where the implementation belongs to.

Also, enumerating the instances required is significant proof technique called induction.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Quoting Wikipedia articles about 20th century programming logic doesn’t prove a single thing. All you’ve done is thrown a number (2 billion) and made a vague statement as to why you think that’s bad. But your explanation doesn’t say anything about why 2D websites are bad; it’s just you saying over and over that “there could be more 3D websites and those websites could be made with Meshpage”. That’s it. That’s not proof. That’s a mediocre pitch made by a desperate salesman.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

But your explanation doesn’t say anything about why 2D websites are bad;

Well, given that we need to build the next evolution for the technology that we use, our new specification for the tech does the following changes to the status quo:
1) step from 2d to 3d
2) step from 2d video technology to 3d models tech
3) step from recording past events to designing the future
4) step from camera record button press to actually having fine-tuned control of how the scene looks like
5) step from complex asset rendering chains to easy user interfaces
5) step from copyright infringement to actually following copyright

See, every one of these changes are going to the positive direction, and thus 2d websites are worse than the end result that we get when we follow these practices.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

step from copyright infringement to actually following copyright

Considering you’ve already failed that step, you can’t be trusted to follow the rest, never mind that these are still entirely your assumptions and not grounded on what people actually want. But then you hate the idea of actually giving people what they want.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

TP’s always been trying to dupe people into believing his steaming pile of website has any real value

My steaming pile of website is only implementing one requirement: “it just looks nice”.

This is important that it needs to be implemented with a computer, so your management-imposed suit and tie and razor blade isn’t enough to get your “implementation” accepted.

That “it just looks nice” is the requirement that I implemented for the larger companies, so I’m already expert in that area. They copied it over 100 million times, so we have over 100 million gadgets that just look nice.

and such behavior is the core essence of NFTs. It was only natural.

I tried to shake the NFT area by adding real value inside their “hidden storage” associated with the NFT. Sadly the customers only saw the marketing message, and none of the customers saw the real value. But this is what NFT area is doing, they replace the internet with marketing material, and move real value outside of internet, to the hidden area inside the NFT’s. Then real money is able to unleash the real value, once all the value from the internet has been moved away.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

lmao 3d is already on the web you offer nothing new or exciting lmao lmao lmao

there simply isn’t enough of it in web.

I offer a way to fill the web with nice 3d animations.

It will be similar kind of web explosion than what we saw when google filled the web with adverticements or when jimmy wales put his face to the wikipedia’s adverticement banner.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

Nobody thinks you’re a representation of the people, Tero, because you hate other people.

This is why I redirect my hate towards gadgets. The gadget simply does not care if you throw it to a wall, and you can’t hurt its feelings. It was always a mistake by social media to include humans to be part of the systems we design. But that mistake has already happened, and cannot be easily fixed, because when you open the door, it cannot be closed without anger and terror from the humans involved.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16

The suggestion that you hate machines more than humans is a first.

Yes. I hate gadgets enough that I “make them look nice”. Implementing “it looks nice” for a gadget is a worst thing you can do to it. Its usefulness has been hidden behind bling and flashy animations.

If you actually hated gadgets you wouldn’t be in programming.

Maybe I just like the complexity and logic.

Humans simply don’t have that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

My steaming pile of website is only implementing one requirement: “it just looks nice”.

And your track record there has been questionable, at best. Even if your site design passed basic corporate UI/UX standards in the 2020s, if all you need for your website is “it looks nice”, all your potential customers are going to say is “it looks nice” and not actually download Meshpage.

That “it just looks nice” is the requirement that I implemented for the larger companies, so I’m already expert in that area.

For a defunct phone that is no longer available in the markets. That still doesn’t make you an expert in website design.

I tried to shake the NFT area by adding real value inside their “hidden storage” associated with the NFT.

NFTs don’t store anything, at least not anything significant or substantial. The best you could do is have membership and perks associated with ownership of an NFT, which again by itself doesn’t promise anything. It doesn’t shake up what already exists in the NFT scene where minters of an image series promise outlandish rewards like private islands or functioning casinos. Because the way most NFT communities are run, they’re nothing more than an exclusive club of people with too much disposable income trying to pretend that they’re trendy.

But this is what NFT area is doing, they replace the internet with marketing material, and move real value outside of internet, to the hidden area inside the NFT’s

Why would NFTs ever want to move value outside of the Internet? One of the biggest selling points claimed by NFT advocates is for virtual objects on the Internet like game loot to have monetary value that can be exchanged. That’s not moving value outside the Internet. At best it means things on the Internet have value beyond the games or virtual worlds they’re designed for. But even then, you wouldn’t want to move it off the Internet completely. NFT fans know this, that’s why they make grandiose claims about using NFTs across virtual worlds, metaverses, and all sorts of vague Web 3.0 things they have very little grasp over about how any of this will be feasibly implemented.

Then real money is able to unleash the real value, once all the value from the internet has been moved away.

Let’s have a recap here: Meshpage’s original grand project, for which its creator demanded millions of dollars from his government, was to make a seamless platform between a 3D model and a browser so changes could be made to models and animations in real time, and render/export them in real time with no delay. It was also meant to have automatic, instantaneous copyright enforcement features that would basically prevent any potential infringement by banning most, if not all attempts at exporting 3D models and animations if the system detected it, despite not having any sort of database to compare with copyrighted works.

And now its main purpose is to shill NFTs to a general public and move off the Internet entirely? You heard it here first, folks. Copyright is represented by a dull fucknugget whose only understanding of technology is how it lets him scam, rape, and murder the most gullible. And even then, the madlads with the most disposable income are not going to see any value in Meshpage-based NFTs, or if Meshpage, a free-to-download piece of heavily damaged software, were to become an NFT itself.

If you can’t even trick the most gullible of idiots into giving you money, you are genuinely, truly beyond help.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

instantaneous copyright enforcement features that would basically prevent any potential infringement by banning most, if not all attempts at exporting 3D models and animations if the system detected it, despite not having any sort of database to compare with copyrighted works.

One of the best copyright features available is website’s ability to display the license conditions associated with the asset. It does not prevent or ban any copyrighted works, but instead just displays under which conditions (if any) you are allowed to manipulate and distribute the content. This feature is so powerful than even github’s copilot has been sued for not following that pattern. The feature leaves actual “filtering” to the user’s responsibility, but just puts them on notice that licenses need to be considered at this location.

See this feature proves that the stupid operations where you prevent user from doing stuff is actually not needed to make your copyright story working correctly. It’s enough that your technology is transparent and explains in plain english where license issues should be considered, and leave the actual following of the law to humans where it belongs. Technology does not need to do all of the copyright enforcement/filtering etc issues, but it can leave important decisions for humans to execute.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

One of the best copyright features available is website’s ability to display the license conditions associated with the asset. It does not prevent or ban any copyrighted works, but instead just displays under which conditions (if any) you are allowed to manipulate and distribute the content.

This is not the crowning glory or argument you want it to be. If your software doesn’t automatically prevent or ban copyrighted works from potential infringement, it’s not good enough for the RIAA standards – the same standards you want everyone else to follow. Because that’s the exact same demand the RIAA has sued Internet Service Providers and online file storage services for.

It’s enough that your technology is transparent and explains in plain english where license issues should be considered, and leave the actual following of the law to humans where it belongs. Technology does not need to do all of the copyright enforcement/filtering etc issues

The RIAA has claimed otherwise, multiple times, in the past. In fact, it’s precisely because the RIAA can’t accept anything other than guaranteed takedowns that we’re still dragging our feet over this sort of legislation, because the RIAA keeps asking for a unicorn that even you can’t implement.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

the RIAA keeps asking for a unicorn that even you can’t implement.

This isn’t true. We have explicit copyright controls worthy of praise in our software. For example, movie files are guaranteed to be free of copyright problems simply because we do not support movie file file formats like mp4 or avi files. It’s simply not possible to pass the pirated hollywood movie file from the slots which allow digital content to be imported to our system. The slot simply rejects all movie files as too risky copyright-wise. While it might have overblocking issues, like home videos cannot be manipulated with our tools, we prefer the overblocking instead of taking risk of copyright problems for dangerous content like movie files where existing piracy communities are available.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

File format incompatibility is not a feature of copyright law. You can’t open Photoshop files in Microsoft Paint, that doesn’t mean Microsoft Paint is itself antipiracy. The fact that an Amiga console from 1994 can’t run God of War does not prove that the Amiga console had better antipiracy capabilities than an xBox.

Seriously, go to a law firm and claim that format incompatibility is a feature of copyright law, and see how quickly you get laughed out of there.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

File format incompatibility is not a feature of copyright law.

You are wrong. copyright law explicitly states that author’s exclusive operations are DISPLAY, perform and distribute of copyrighted works. This display part is clearly unavailable when your software do not accept the files and thus cannot display them on computer screen. Thus file formats being incompatible is a valid defense against copyright infringement lawsuit that is claiming violation of the display exclusive operation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Thus file formats being incompatible is a valid defense against copyright infringement lawsuit that is claiming violation of the display exclusive operation.

I promise you that this will not protect you from the RIAA. Case in point, not only did they sue a grandmother claiming that she downloaded music via her Macintosh computer through Windows-only software, they sued her while she was dead during the time of the alleged infringement. File format incompatibility will not protect from copyright trolls like you, because you’ll always dream up some trumped up claim to demand your blood money.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

File format incompatibility will not protect from copyright trolls like you, because you’ll always dream up some trumped up claim to demand your blood money.

It’s the courts that decide what level proof is required for getting some outrageous claims pass the legal review. If RIAA claims some dead woman’s computer was still running and constantly swapping copyrighted works belonging to RIAA, this claim could still be true even if the woman is dead and buried. If they claim that it’s running some windows software that is incompatible with her macintosh, that would be a grounds for appeal or at least legal review. So when you dead granny gets jailtime for that, she can apply for a dismissal of the charges before spending one night at jail.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

this claim could still be true even if the woman is dead and buried

Based on the technology that existed in 2003? Yeah, that’s not happening.

If they claim that it’s running some windows software that is incompatible with her macintosh, that would be a grounds for appeal or at least legal review. So when you dead granny gets jailtime for that, she can apply for a dismissal of the charges before spending one night at jail.

Or the RIAA could have simply actually gathered proper evidence that wasn’t laughably bad, or chose not to go after someone incapable of inflicting the amount of monetary damages they claim exist without proof.

Your abuse of the legal system may have been considered acceptable back in the early 2000s, and you may think that dragging innocent people through the courts with poor standards of evidence is fine. But here’s the thing about the courts: they don’t like it when you waste their time, or being turned into a system for grifters and scam artists to cheat money from people. And the fact that your type keeps bringing cases to sue innocent people, and running away before you can be held responsible, doesn’t make judges more friendly towards your cause.

I’d also like to remind you that it’s this sort of cavalier behavior that got your copyright enforcer friends in Prenda Law and Malibu Media in jail, so… go ahead, Tero. Sue someone in Finland, and let’s see how far you go.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: A fundamentally flawed premise

If the markets are killing author’s money sources and keeping them starving, the copyright terms need to be longer.

Uh, no. The market doesn’t “kill” the author’s money source. The market IS the money source. If the seller didn’t make money, then potential buyers chose not to buy the sold thing in the first place. Copyright law doesn’t that the seller makes money. If the author had the exclusive privilege of making money, then the author is responsible for failing. (Unauthorized distributors aren’t relevant in the context of this law because they aren’t hindered by copyright term extensions.)

But it’s always a risk to become an author. 70 years is plenty of time to think about your career choices

You’re thinking about the wrong authors. The authors relevant under this term extension are dead. Copyright is supposed to incentivize production of works which don’t exist yet. You’re supposed to “think about your career choices” (i.e. decide whether to write a book) before you actually write the book!

if money is not appearing to your doorsteps, are you going to wait one year more or change your activity to something more profitable…?

Your argument would be better made in favor of replacing copyright with government grants to aspiring authors who have yet to write a book. Fund production, not reward successful avenues. Make the poor richer, not the successful richer. If your book didn’t make money, then it was a bad one, or you marketed it wrong, or you got bad luck. Yes, terop. Without realizing it, you made a great argument in favor of what Koby calls “socialism”.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You’re thinking about the wrong authors. The authors relevant under this term extension are dead.

Well, we wouldn’t have Lord of the Rings movies without the efforts of book writers who created LOTR books right after world war II. That’s how long it takes for copyrighted works to become useful.

So complaining that meshpage isn’t useful TODAY is failed attempt that declaring that copyright doesn’t work correctly. You simply don’t understand when it will be useful. It takes 70 years after my death before usefulness can be ensured and investments in the meshpage technology actually start paying salaries.

But we as authors benefit from the efforts that previous generation of authors implemented. We have LOTR available and we can “absorb” their teachings in our works. Once we improve the legacy that was given to us, we can bring next wave of improvements to the literal works that we build. Now it’s computer’s time to shine, and the effort that we spend today, will be useful 70 years after we die.

And this is why meshpage can already be declared useful. It isn’t useful today, but will be in the future, if it survives to that date.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

public domain-hating genocide-desiring

public domain was nice when I was 15 years old, and my parents paid all my expenses.

But after creating your own copyrighted works and watching them burn to ashes in the market for copyrighted works, public domain might not make much sense.

So if we assume that you’re still 15 year old teenager, everything goes logically correct and we can agree that public domain is good for teenagers but bad for older people.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

But after creating your own copyrighted works and watching them burn to ashes in the market for copyrighted works, public domain might not make much sense.

Why would the public domain lead to your own copyrighted works “burn to ashes in the market for copyrighted works”? Never mind that, why would any of this matter to a 15 year old? 15 year olds don’t leverage content from the public domain, at least not intentionally or overtly.

You keep trying to play to copyright maximalist desires, but it’s simply not working.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Why would the public domain lead to your own copyrighted works “burn to ashes in the market for copyrighted works”?

1) Public domain’s popular feature is that compensation do not need to be paid to the author.
2) Why copyrighted works burn to ashes in the market is that compensation for the effort/work is not appearing even after product is ready to be used by end users
3) so (1) and (2) together means that public domain (and other ways to reject compensation for the authors) are making copyrighted works burn to ashes.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

so (1) and (2) together means that public domain (and other ways to reject compensation for the authors) are making copyrighted works burn to ashes.

If this was the case, you’re claiming that people would rather listen to Beethoven than pay for Taylor Swift music. You’re claiming that people would rather watch A Bucket of Blood than Wakanda Forever. And yet, that’s not the case.

Hell, a major rebuttal by copyright fanatics is that people only want to pirate newer content and don’t actually care about older content. Now you’re claiming that people will consume older content at the expense of newer products? Which is it? I know full well I won’t get an honest answer from you, because copyright maniacs like you are so two-faced you can’t even keep track of your own lies.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

a major rebuttal by copyright fanatics is that people only want to pirate newer content and don’t actually care about older content.

Yes, but the failure already happened when the user decided to use pirated content. The reason for the failure is that the creation of that pirated content is too burdensome and the society cannot take the burden if everyone started following the same practices. The key isn’t the old vs new content, but rather that the user selected pirated content over licensed and paid content.

Now you’re claiming that people will consume older content at the expense of newer products?

There is no requirement that public domain works are older content, even though expiring copyright duration is the most common way of work falling into public domain.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

The key isn’t the old vs new content

This would be true if not for the fact that you’ve been complaining about having to provide tech support for old content, and the fact that new content has to compete with old content as one of your biggest gripes since you’ve been on this site.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

he fact that new content has to compete with old content as one of your biggest gripes since you’ve been on this site.

Yeah, noone wants to offer their original content to teenagers who wears star wars t-shirt and secretly watch pirated copies of star wars in their basement and loudly rejecting all original content because it is missing the famous lightsaber effect during sword fights. Competing with star wars is endless nights of horror, when star wars built their empire with 100 years old film technology and our lousy computers running rendering farms are struggling to match their technology. Film technology has been carefully developed for endless number of years and fine-tuned to level which is impossible to match with our slow computer cpu/gpu combos. We’re late in our deliveries, and our new tech is not powerful enough. But technology must be developed further, even if you’re 100 years late in your deliveries.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

noone wants to offer their original content to teenagers who wears star wars t-shirt and secretly watch pirated copies of star wars in their basement and loudly rejecting all original content because it is missing the famous lightsaber effect during sword fights

lmao someone’s mad that their “hard work” didn’t make them the next George Lucas lmao die mad about it

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Yeah, noone wants to offer their original content to teenagers who wears star wars t-shirt and secretly watch pirated copies of star wars in their basement and loudly rejecting all original content because it is missing the famous lightsaber effect during sword fights.

This accusation makes very little sense – in the days when Star Wars started to be a thing, most people accessing Star Wars content would have done so legally, in the movie theaters. I don’t believe there are stats for how much piracy contributed to the popularity of Star Wars then, but given that file storage drives were not as accessible back then, this idea that “pirated Star Wars” was what caused other content to fail is a pretty ridiculous claim. Especially when what caused other content to fail wasn’t the pirating, it was – in your own claim – the lightsabers.

What you’re angry about is the equivalent of claiming that because more people prefer caramel ice cream to vanilla, the caramel flavor must have committed copyright infringement. It’s a matter of taste. Copyright law doesn’t protect you from that.

We’re late in our deliveries, and our new tech is not powerful enough. But technology must be developed further, even if you’re 100 years late in your deliveries.

I mean, sure. That’s an entirely laudable goal, at least idealistically. But copyright law will not help you achieve that.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

“If this was the case, you’re claiming that people would rather listen to Beethoven than pay for Taylor Swift music. You’re claiming that people would rather watch A Bucket of Blood than Wakanda Forever. And yet, that’s not the case.”

To give an often cited example, Night Of The Living Dead was PD. Because of that, it played on TV regularly. There’s now hundreds of movies, TV shows, books, comics, etc. based on the tropes that originated with that movie.

There are people who would rather watch an old Roger Corman movie than a Marvel new release. But, the impact of culture being available to all goes way beyond what a person pays for at the modern box office. It’s a damn shame that people like Romero didn’t earn Musk money from what they delivered to the cultural zeitgeist, but his contributions will live a very long life.

Our friend here is just angry that while better content exists, his stuff will always be something nobody wants. Whether it’s the deliberately crippled tools he makes, the vastly more successful competitors or the hilarious failures at marketing he’s made, the thing blocking him from success is his own actions.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Whether it’s the deliberately crippled tools he makes, the vastly more successful competitors or the hilarious failures at marketing he’s made, the thing blocking him from success is his own actions.

Zuckerberg recently said that they never had a shortage of doubters, even in their most successful times. I think the problem here is the same — when you actually build something that works, internet’s response is to dismiss it as if the technology development never happened. But fact is that once developers build something, it cannot be removed from the world until last version of the software disappears from usage.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

“Zuckerberg recently said that they never had a shortage of doubters, even in their most successful times. I think the problem here is the same — when you actually build something that works, internet’s response is to dismiss it as if the technology development never happened”

You’re no Zuckerberg, and even he had certain things that worked for him that he couldn’t control. In the case of Facebook, the internet’s response was to adopt it as a standard platform. It doesn’t seem dismissed, even though his Meta escapades seem to be failing due to lack of interest and utility.

“But fact is that once developers build something, it cannot be removed from the world until last version of the software disappears from usage.”

Not even then. Archiving is still an important pursuit even if the thing being archived has no specific usage at that moment.

Interesting that you’re saying this, though. Aren’t you the guy who normally claims that your software would be a world standard if only your competitors were deemed illegal? Don’t you usually claim that other developers’ work needs to be deleted?

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Aren’t you the guy who normally claims that your software would be a world standard if only your competitors were deemed illegal?

It’s slightly different than this. I just expect that my competitors have similar kind of problems keeping software legal than what struggle I’ve had to go through. Basically, if the people who actually try to do it correctly have significant problems keeping it legal, the copyright minimalist/people who don’t even try to do the correct thing has no fucking chance of getting their software legal. Thus many of my competitors will be declared illegal once the slow hand of the law reaches to their technology. This has happened to many small projects, including napster, limewire, piratebay, mega etc. My prediction is that it’ll happen to projects like ffmpeg or other video players.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

when you actually build something that works, internet’s response is to dismiss it as if the technology development never happened

What, exactly, have you built about Meshpage that “works”? You’ve always claimed that Meshpage was meant to be software usable by kindergarteners. For some reason adults don’t count because you think adults are stupider than children. And how has that panned out?

My prediction is that it’ll happen to projects like ffmpeg or other video players.

In all the years you’ve been here, Blender has not been declared illegal since the project started in 1994. I think you’ll continue to be disappointed by your predictions.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

For some reason adults don’t count because you think adults are stupider than children.

Yes, your adults have lost their ability to explore the world with open mind. When a child finds out useful techniques from the world, exploring what the knobs do, and adults are afraid of pressing the button in fear of breaking the computer.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Even children know not to murder and rape in the name of copyright law.

I’m glad you didn’t include robbery to this list, given that there was some robbery event with some 15 year old criminal kids who wanted my money.

Dunno if copyright was their reason for the robbery, but it seems to happen too often.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14

given that there was some robbery event with some 15 year old criminal kids who wanted my money

I’d ask you for a citation to this claim, but considering that you’ve gone so far as to remove your own resume from the Internet, I’m not holding my breath waiting for you to prove this.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:16

Then there is no obligation to believe your claim. In the same way, there is no obligation to believe that you’ve actually worked on the phones or hardware you claim to have.

After all, you personally removed your resume from the Internet. It must not be worth any credibility if you went so far as to do so.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17

I’ve said this before – I actually buy that part of his nonsense. By this claim, he’s someone who worked almost alone for years working on embedded code that got used a lot, then had to sign up for non-compete/NDA when he left. That’s fine.

The problem is when he claims that after he left he’s been working on world beating tech that he’s not able to really demonstrate but would be the global leader if only he didn’t have competitors or public domain.

I’m able to accept that we have a weird old school dev who never got to grips with post-90s development. Just not why someone who got a decent payout from his other work would both to argue with people here, let alone try to be a solo developer in something as mature and competitive as 3d modelling software.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:18

I’ve said this before – I actually buy that part of his nonsense. By this claim, he’s someone who worked almost alone for years working on embedded code that got used a lot, then had to sign up for non-compete/NDA when he left. That’s fine.

I’ll grant this much, since I did find the resume, and looking up some credits of the Amiga games he cited does list a Tero Pulkinnen. I don’t know if he necessarily worked alone, but it’s unlikely. It seems more probable that he’s disgruntled with having to work with people he disagreed with, and decided to double down on his disgust with having to lower himself and collaborate instead of be worshipped at his feet.

The problem is when he claims that after he left he’s been working on world beating tech that he’s not able to really demonstrate but would be the global leader if only he didn’t have competitors or public domain.

The only “world beating” part of his tech is the idea that his software and export mechanisms don’t use conventional file formats as an “antipiracy measure”, which is the same as calling a piece of paper sophisticated antipiracy technology.

The potential of a browser-based 3D modeling program might have been there, he just has absolutely no selling point for why this should be the way forward, especially considering that he can’t even run his own software without turning his machine into a goddamn potato.

I’m able to accept that we have a weird old school dev who never got to grips with post-90s development.

I think it’s fair to say that if this was still the 90s, he’d still let his personality, superiority complex, and deep-seated issues get the better of him.

Just not why someone who got a decent payout from his other work would both to argue with people here, let alone try to be a solo developer in something as mature and competitive as 3d modelling software.

It’s obvious that Tero has sufficient money from other sources, which he’s chosen not to divulge because it contradicts his “I only made $58 over ten years” narrative. He posts here because we collectively enjoy punking on his copyright cultism, while nobody responds to the few times he posts on Github claiming that stricter copyright laws will herald the new dawn of Meshpage.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

That’s funny because I know at least one Japanese author that manufactures original work at a crazy rate PER YEAR.

Most authors also don’t take 70 years to write ONE book. 70 years is enough to write at least 15 books, more if their stuff gets rejected by the parasite known as publishers and they have to self-publish.

Please do not sully actual writing with your fucking verbiage, Shame of Finland.

Also actually fucking read up on how a book gets to the bookshelf, you fucking fascist. Your WILFUL IGNORANCE is showing.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“So I self-published my works and got $3.”

Good for you! Some of the most famous and influential artists in history got less than that during their lifetime.

“What’s the next step? The family is screaming for xmas presents and car needs fuel and rent needs to be paid.”

I bet you’re kicking yourself about the fact that you pissed away 30 grand or whatever it was on those bus adverts, huh?

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

lmao it was a bus ad what’s experimental about that lmao lmao lmao

How do you expect I can know how a marketing works without actually trying it out? A Bus ad is inexpensive way of testing how marketing works in practice, and thus experimental.

Also I didn’t have any way to collect money from the potential customers. So ROI is kinda bad in that experiment. But it proved that getting ROI actually working as intended is more difficult than expected.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

you said it was expensive now it’s inexpensive

Yes, both are true at the same time. It is expensive (for me), but inexpensive (as a marketing technique).

The problem is that usually marketing techniques are used by companies larger than one person. And I’m only one person without significant money reserves. So it can be simultaniously expensive and inexpensive.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

The problem is that usually marketing techniques are used by companies larger than one person. And I’m only one person without significant money reserves. So it can be simultaniously expensive and inexpensive.

While a fair point to make, this is not a problem that copyright laws will solve for you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

government promised that copyright laws are the mechanism how authors can receive compensation from the market, so it clearly changes the money position/fixes the money reserve problem.

You keep hanging onto this one point as if it means that the government is legally bound to make you rich. It’s also been explained to you multiple times that this is not what the law says, not in any country on the planet. The government is not legally obliged by copyright law or any other law to make Meshpage desirable or worth paying money for.

You’re more than welcome to petition the government of Finland to make your demands, but seeing that it’s been two years since that invitation was made and you’ve done absolutely nothing about it, I think it’s safe to say that the resources of Finland remain unplundered by one narcissistic has-been named Tero Pulkinnen.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

The government is not legally obliged by copyright law or any other law to make Meshpage desirable or worth paying money for.

Yes, but authors are also not legally obliged by copyright law or any other law to make their content available for end users free of charge. Can you see where this pattern is leading, soon you have no content available at all, when all the authors who are having money problems will choose to make their content unavailable for general public.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Can you see where this pattern is leading, soon you have no content available at all, when all the authors who are having money problems will choose to make their content unavailable for general public.

You keep trying to shill this doomsday scenario as if it means anything significant. If authors who have money problems choose to make their content unavailable, that still doesn’t make them money. An author is free to choose to make their content unavailable, but in that case, they’re not entitled to demand money for it. Copyright law does not reward them for the effort put in for something that is not available for sale to the general public. You can choose to take Meshpage offline today and this would still not change.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

If authors who have money problems choose to make their content unavailable, that still doesn’t make them money.

It isn’t this black and white. Author’s toolbox includes preferring certain areas of the world or certain end users, and giving priviledged few a head start in their quest to dominate the world. When authors decide that you’re not worthy of the content that the author built, you have no alternative other than hide in your fox’s nest.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:17

There’s a nagging feeling among the developer community

What community? It’s very clear that Meshpage has no developer community. Partly because nobody wants to work on your vanity project, partly because you can’t stand the idea of other people getting involved.

this “other authors” cannot fix your symbian phone problem

And? That’s entirely the user’s choice. If I choose to use an Android phone, I give up on the features that an iPhone might provide me. That still doesn’t mean that you can leverage copyright law to force others to use your software.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

“How do you expect I can know how a marketing works without actually trying it out? A Bus ad is inexpensive way of testing how marketing works in practice, and thus experimental.”

You’ve been mocked here because it was obvious that advertising such a niche product to a general audience was a waste of time without spending a single dollar. That doubled when you shared the ad itself and it was clearly incomprehensible to even people who might have been in the market for your product.

“Also I didn’t have any way to collect money from the potential customers”

That seems like a big problem.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

it was obvious that advertising such a niche product to a general audience was a waste of time without spending a single dollar.

Its actually not a niche product. It implements exactly one requirement: “it must look nice”
This is important requirement, for example every job applicant in the planet need to implement it. Every adverticement must get it implemented. If you want to get money from customers, you need to implement it. So clearly because all money on the planet is behind that one requirement, it is definitely not niche. It’s essential element in any kind of marketing activities.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

And you’ve failed at that basic requirement, too.

I didn’t say the task is easy even after spending your whole life finding solutions to it.

Most recently while implementing it, we needed to solve RSA problems and navier-stokes existence and smoothness problems, simply because water simulation with a computer just looks so difficult and cool.

While RSA problem is solvable with quantum computer, and real-world problems rarely have primes included in their numeric values, the actual smoothness depends on all the parameter values producing correct results, so RSA like failures should not be present in the solutions if you want to get functional programming working on the area with ordinary computers. Taylor polynomials are just approximations and cannot solve the problem, because they rely on sampling the function and its derivatives in single point instead of controlling the whole behavior of the function.

So we just are in process of passing this problem to people who have beefier computers available than our lousy phone hardware. When supercomputers and quantum computers start to solve why some people on the planet cannot get their hair straight for the morning meeting because they cannot get water simulation working on their phone, we start to approach the level of stuff you need to do on the planet to get our technologies working for the next evolution step.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

You genuinely do not get it. You keep trying to pass off your end goal of implementing high-end modeling and rendering on a browser as something achievable, desirable, and worthwhile – yet your entire solution of how to get around the exact same questions that Pixar, Blender, Autodesk et al had to answer is to pray that enough people run supercomputer rigs in their homes instead of mobile phones? You know… the exact same devices that you keep trying to push your software on?

Dropping all sorts of complicated math on everyone else to justify how difficult your work is will not convince the government to surrender their money to you.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

yet your entire solution of how to get around the exact same questions that Pixar, Blender, Autodesk et al had to answer is to pray that enough people run supercomputer rigs in their homes instead of mobile phones?

Well, I like the 1 million bucks that is reserved for the person who solves the millennium problems first in the whole world.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

So I self-published my works and got $3.

No, what you did was teach some people how to use code on Fiverr or itch.io and got $48 out of it, at best. If you’re going to lie about your past, at least have the decency to keep it consistent.

What’s the next step?

There are several, of which has been often repeated to you only for you to blithely ignore all advice. A debugging team, a marketing representative, a pool of test users like the kindergarteners you insist that Meshpage was designed for, those would be an actually good start. The problem is you have such a distaste and burning hatred for any other human beings you won’t even consider those to be options.

The family is screaming for xmas presents and car needs fuel and rent needs to be paid.

Tero, you hate other humans with a fiery passion. An utter misanthrope like you is not going to have children, or give presents to your parents. As for the car and the rent, why do you feel entitled to such things? If you can’t afford it, do without. That’s what you tell everyone else all the time.

it was just 2200euros.

You spent a decade to piss away 2200 euros, and now you’re complaining you don’t have money for fuel or rent? In any other situation, for any other person, this would be a social tragedy. For you, it’s just desserts.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

The problem is you have such a distaste and burning hatred for any other human beings

I’m going with the facebook route:
1) send enough illegal spam to various bulletin boards that your network is wide enough
2) link your work to the oppressive activities from existing players, like strict copyright enforcements, censorship, rejections by the publishers etc.
3) activate haters community in techdirt by keeping the discussion ongoing and spread the message
4) bring in fan community to sometimes give outrageous messages and trolling.
5) let the two communitities fight for dominance
6) ???
7) SUCCESS

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

lmao what the fuck are you even talking about

The practices of the popular companies regularly get declared illegal once legal eagles find out what is happening. There’s two notable examples of this:
1) spam emails used by marketing activities
2) immediate publish operations popularised by youtube

Both of them were declared illegal after legal folks looked more carefully to the practices.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

spam is still legal in the US you fuck

Not for the purpose that these companies are using it for. Basically sending spam in US requires client-like relationship between the sender and the receiver. So spam is not allowed to be used for finding new clients, but only after you have business relationship with the targets.

This is why government is trying to close down shops that are using automated caller bots for calling unsolicited phone calls to millions of people.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

This is why government is trying to close down shops that are using automated caller bots for calling unsolicited phone calls to millions of people.

The government shuts those down because those calls lead to call centers trying to scam old people with threats of fake police investigations or Amazon refunds. It’s not quite the same as getting emails from an advertiser, once you’ve checked a box to say you accept receiving emails every once in a while.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with “immediate publish operations popularised by youtube”. Publishing anything by itself is not illegal. The closest equivalent I can think of what you’re trying to say here is claiming that YouTube makes it harder for copyright enforcement. And that is a silly way to think about it. The ability of hardware stores to sell hammers does not suddenly become illegal because someone used a hammer to smack somebody else on the head.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

The ability of hardware stores to sell hammers does not suddenly become illegal because someone used a hammer to smack somebody else on the head.

I’m sure that hammer manufacturers would fix this clear omission in the technology they’re selling, if it was technically possible. Unfortunately it isn’t, since steel hammer simply cannot detect the purpose of your use, and thus their technology is unable to fix this glaring omission in the feature set.

But meshpage does not have this kind of fundamental limitations. Software is able to do significant amount of decisions and one of those decisions can be to prevent illegal actions from happening at all.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16

you keep saying Meshpage will stop people from doing the thing it couldn’t stop you from doing you fucking hack

Well, I have better access rights to meshpage than anyone else on the planet. See for example the vault and animation submission pages which are unavailable to regular public, but available to me as the meshpage admin/maintainer. Internet has tons of this kind of special access areas which are forbidden from regular public, but available for content maintainers and otherwise cooler people than your average american.

Also crossing the login pages without appropriate permissions is illegal by hacking laws.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:19

The fact that your “groundbreaking” technology was unable to prevent the copyright infringement was pointed out to you from Day 1 of you proposing this slipshod argument. You admitting it now is not a point in your favor. It is a blatant, open admission that even you cannot meet your extreme maximalist copyright standards.

I know this is the point where you insist that you tried to implement it and that makes it okay, but here’s a reminder: the RIAA doesn’t care. All the RIAA cares about is someone they can send a threatening letter to. Even if it’s to one of their most blindly faithful fanatics.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:20

open admission that even you cannot meet your extreme maximalist copyright standards.

its much much worse than this. Controlling one person is easy relative to the controlling of the elephant herd that destroys everything in their path. Your task is to teach maximalist copyright principles to the elephants and make them respect the almost invisible dividing line drawn in the water…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:21

Controlling one person is easy relative to the controlling of the elephant herd that destroys everything in their path.

Yes, and when you can’t even control yourself to meet your own standards, that says more about your standards than your ability to force your will upon anyone.

Thankfully, for the sake of a functioning society, you have no such powers of coercion.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:22

when you can’t even control yourself to meet your own standards

Yes. This might be more dangerous property of internet than you think. This “controlling yourself” is significant failure in internet. (some kids die because tiktok videos recommend them to eat 30 hamburgers as fast as possible etc, which is clearly a failure in “controlling yourself” on internet when internet demands stupidity.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15

How does this conflict with software’s ability to do decisions?

If your software let you commit copyright infringement, then it stands to very clear reason that your software had no such capability to decide whether something was copyright infringement or not.

That’s the point. Even your own software can’t meet the excessively rigid copyright standards that you set for everyone else. Now, this is typically the part where you complain that you’re a one-man team (something which, again, has been pointed out to you multiple times as your own choice to work alone because you detest other people), but even larger teams supported by the RIAA can’t create software that fits their requirements either. Because it’s simply not feasible, or possible.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16

it stands to very clear reason that your software had no such capability to decide whether something was copyright infringement or not.

I don’t need to decide if it has copyright infringement in it. It’s enough that I filter out “common copyright infringement patterns”. Like if you download material from both boston herald web site and new york times web site, it’s guaranteed that one of those downloads it at least copyright infringement, (since you cannot own random websites on the internet yourself). This is so common pattern that we’ve decided that it always implies that user is doing copyright infringement, even though our software cannot track the borders of copyright infringements exactly.

Because it’s simply not feasible, or possible.

This is where you fail. Overblocking solves the problem. It’s copyright minimalist principles that makes it “not feasible” or “not possible”, so it’s you own failure that you cannot implement these simple rules. Everyone else thinks the checks are possible to implement with software.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:17

I don’t need to decide if it has copyright infringement in it.

You just said, above, that your technology just needs to allow humans the opportunity you decide. Now you’re saying you don’t have to decide?

You keep trying to play word games like this to avoid responsibility on your part or your technology. That’s not going to cut it in the legal world. But it’s quite clear that you copyright types are always shifty when it comes to actually proving your claims.

Like if you download material from both boston herald web site and new york times web site, it’s guaranteed that one of those downloads it at least copyright infringement

Exactly what about your software or technology can prove or detect that material was downloaded from those sites? For that matter, why does anyone download anything from a new site? If you want to plagiarize the articles there, copying and pasting would be sufficient. Nothing about a computer’s ability to copy and paste data prevents this sort of infringement. Nothing about the original websites prevents this sort of infringement. Nothing about Meshpage would have prevented pasting a wall of text that somebody wrote.

Overblocking solves the problem.

What overblocking does is incentivize ordinary users to be harassed, inconvenienced, or sued because you can’t be bothered to actually determine whether usage is infringement, or even if infringement happened at all. This sort of behavior is precisely what led to Prenda Law and Malibu Media suing the innocent and got them nailed to the wall and tossed into prison afterwards. But the fact that you would encourage behavior that results in prison sentences is not surprising.

Everyone else thinks the checks are possible to implement with software.

If this is possible, the RIAA would have done it a long time ago – and yet, they haven’t. They haven’t got over the fact that most of the people they sued were innocent. Realistically, nobody should be letting egomaniacs like them, or you, near any sort of power.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18

Overblocking solves the problem.

you would encourage behavior that results in prison sentences

You have very big hurdle with proving that overblocking causes prison sentences. I call bluff here and challenge you to provide detailed steps how overblocking some infringing material on internet causes prison sentences.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:19

What I said was:

What overblocking does is incentivize ordinary users to be harassed, inconvenienced, or sued because you can’t be bothered to actually determine whether usage is infringement, or even if infringement happened at all.

Overblocking, by itself, is unlikely to lead to prison sentences. What I said it does is encourage copyright maniacs to harass people into following stricter standards even if they’re innocent. This leads to lawyers like Prenda Law and the instigators behind Malibu Media knowingly and intentionally harassing innocent people for extortion money, because they know that copyright maniacs will protect them.

Where they failed is that judges eventually caught on to what they were doing and threw them in jail for it. Which is what you keep encouraging, based on your posts made on the Prenda Law and Malibu Media articles in support of copyright trolls. Because breaking the law, murder, harassment and rape is the only way to enforce your kind of copyright.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:20

Because breaking the law, murder, harassment and rape is the only way to enforce your kind of copyright.

normal way is to send a bill of $3000 to the pirates that got caught, if they accept settlement.

I don’t see where you get these overblown techniques for enforcing copyright, when ordinary paperwork will do the same thing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:21

normal way is to send a bill of $3000 to the pirates that got caught, if they accept settlement.

“Got caught” is a very generous way of putting it, especially when a lot of the recipients of the bills were incorrectly identified. Some had no computer. Some had no Internet. Others simply didn’t fit the demographic or identity of the alleged accused. These people weren’t “caught”, they were harassed into admitting guilt for an offense they did not commit.

I don’t see where you get these overblown techniques for enforcing copyright, when ordinary paperwork will do the same thing.

“Ordinary paperwork”, in fact, did not do the same thing. Your “ordinary paperwork” threatened lawsuits if recipients failed to pay up – most of those threats never followed through. For the few that did, the judges were able to correctly state that people weren’t paying up because they were guilty, they were paying up because they were being scared into doing so. Which is the point where judges usually ask your copyright lawyers for more information or proof that their paperwork is legitimate – only for the copyright lawyers to try and get the cases dismissed before running away. The very few times they didn’t, they paid heavily for their actions.

The net result is that the environment for copyright plaintiffs is far less favorable than the early 2000s, because judges are no longer willing to quickly believe that everyone brought in front of them is a pirate. In fact, judges have said in Australia, Europe, and a few other places that copyright plaintiffs have to put up more proof of infringement up front, in advance, before they’ll let the lawyers go ahead and sue who they want. These requests have, so far, been met with silence or indignation instead of actual pursuit of pirates.

You’re standing on a house of cards with a foundation of sand, Tero. Your paperwork means nothing. If you don’t believe me, send your neighbor in Finland a settlement letter accusing them of copyright infringement, and demand 3000 Euros from them or you take them to court. Let’s see how that turns out.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:23

The truth is that you caught no one. You caught no one with IP addresses, you caught no one doing the sort of back alley exchange that stereotypically portray piracy as. Your technology for finding pirates is a failure, with all proceeds made from your enforcement not the result of law, but extortion.

And it was that very same extortion that landed your biggest enforcers in jail.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

If a user of Meshpages cannot make a model of Micky Mouse, or thousands of other copyrighted characters, it is unfit for purpose.

It’s possible, but you need to use blender (or some other modeller that can create the necessary files) for it.
Our software can just display the end result.

That is, if the software is useful, it can be used for copyright infringement

Our solution is to force the decision on the user. So if they create infringing mickey mouse character, we’re forcing them to consider copyright issues before publishing by a requirement to move the asset to their own hosting space (instead of using random urls from internet).

, just like a pencil can be used to infringe on written works.

Pencil have significant problems with doing decisions for you. Software can do actually useful decisions.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16

why would anyone need your software for that when there are plenty of other functional ones that can do that

There are only a few competitors:
1) sketchfab viewer, commercial
2) three.js, requires programming ability
3) modelviewer.dev, not very flexible
4) 3dviewer.net, rendering result not ok
So why would our solution does not fit to the same list of 3d model viewers?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17

“So why would our solution does not fit to the same list of 3d model viewers?”

Because you announce up front that your primary focus is stopping people doing anything useful with your software?

Even assuming you correctly identified your market and your competitors, you have told people here that you don’t want people to abide by the rules that exist in real life.

Also, it’s interesting how your competitors have changed. You used to whine about Pixar and Blender, and all sorts of other tools that have been used to create vastly profitable content. The current list seems somewhat different.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18

The current list seems somewhat different.

That’s because we identified usability problems with our builder tools and solving that resulted in somewhat simpler user interface. Thus competitors changed to vendors who can provide simple user interface for complex problems. The complex stuff is still available too, if one of our users get interested in researching the solutions further.

Blender never had very simple user interfaces, so it does not compete in that category.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:20

more people will use Blender than will ever use your bullshit

This isn’t popularity contest. In fact, we explicitly rejected popularity as a mechanism for generating value. All your popular works don’t have value, when they cannot get their math working correctly when they focus on how cool it looks and how large boobs the presenter can summon to the crowds.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:24

copyright law will not prevent your competitors from getting a head start.

I’m relying on limitations for computer hardware to fix this issue for me. My plan is to write the code until I hit those hardware limitations that cannot be removed by anyone on the software market. Thus blender, maya, sketchfab etc have the exactly the same hardware limitations present in end user’s computer setup. Once I reach these limitations, my software is at the same level of development than any of my competitors, since they have the exact same limitations that cannot be lifted by any software project.

Then their head start wont matter too much, and we can start properly competing. They can have 200 people writing code, but when the computer hardware limits them to 2Gb memory block, they will have significant problems fitting all that software to that mem area.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:27

I’m relying on limitations for computer hardware to fix this issue for me.

And copyright law has absolutely no relevance to that.

Once I reach these limitations, my software is at the same level of development than any of my competitors

Couple problems with your claim. Your competitors already have working modeling software that are regularly used by the general public. I have friends who use AutoCAD frequently for work. They have dedicated machines to run the software. At best, even if Meshpage gets to a point where it’s on “the same level” as your competition… for people who already use software created by your competition, why would they start using Meshpage as an alternative? What does Meshpage offer besides having a browser environment nobody asked for, and a different UI because you think that conventional clicking methods are stupid?

And all that is based on the assumption you’re anywhere close to what you had in mind for Meshpage’s build. As it stands, based on your own admission, you can’t even run Meshpage on your own system without severely crippling it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:28

for people who already use software created by your competition, why would they start using Meshpage as an alternative?

There’s constantly coming new young people from schools and universities to the market for 3d modelling tools. These new people have either alternative to learn autocad or some software built in 1980s and what is already very complicated and burdensome to learn.

Or they could use something modern, which is easier to learn and more suitable for currently available problems in internet, like creation of youtube videos for the popularity market, or making their homepage look nice.

What does Meshpage offer besides having a browser environment nobody asked for,

You can do interactive web pages with 3d models. Graphics designers who can design the 3d models are always looking for new ways to get their work visible to ordinary internet users.

and a different UI because you think that conventional clicking methods are stupid?

The output of builder tool is actually a zip file. It doesn’t have any clicking methods.

The user interface of the builder tool is something we consider “development user interface”, i.e. it isn’t actually meant for end users, but more like semi-professional people who have hosting setup available.

The builder’s output does not really change user’s home page clicking methods or anything like that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:29

Or they could use something modern, which is easier to learn and more suitable for currently available problems in internet, like creation of youtube videos for the popularity market, or making their homepage look nice.

And are you making your software available for these students and graduates? No, you’re not. What you do is spend your time here boasting about how copyright is going to make you rich, then getting angry about why we’re not kissing your feet and letting you empty our bank accounts.

Graphics designers who can design the 3d models are always looking for new ways to get their work visible to ordinary internet users.

3D/SFX artists already have those methods. It’s called online portfolios. What you’re offering is simply a different method of platforming these things. What you’ve yet to prove is why your solution is an improvement.

The user interface of the builder tool is something we consider “development user interface”, i.e. it isn’t actually meant for end users, but more like semi-professional people who have hosting setup available.

So despite what you’ve claimed in the same post, this tool isn’t for “constantly coming new young people from schools and universities to the market for 3d modelling tools”?

You are genuinely terrible at keeping your lies consistent.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18

Well, if you try to stop copyright infringement it is of no use to copyright holders, as it is of as much use as video player that refuse to play videos not created by the user.

I have perfect solution for exactly this problem, which has been very carefully designed in my technology. I refuse to support video files like mp4 and avi files, but instead of those, I support similar black rectangle tv screen with some completely different technology, in this case 3d models and opengl style graphics. So .obj, .stl, .gltf, .glb and sketchfab’s .zip files are allowed instead of those video files. How this solves the copyright problem is that there isn’t large piracy communities sharing 3d models available like there are movie pirates. So the new technology is incompatible with piracy ecosystem, but it can still implement the same requirement, i.e. creating moving animated graphics for your web page.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:22

But you hate communities to begin with,

Yes, because I hate your community:
1) I let you use the tool I built
2) I give you requirement to build mansions
3) I patiently wait for end results without
actually building those mansions myself, so
that your community would have some fun
activities to do.

But guess the hatred is so deep that the community must reject these invitations.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Figure out why nobody wants to buy your work, so that you can change it to make it attractive to users..

They still remember our 100 million gadgets and keep staring at the screens/remembering how they work. Thus they haven’t yet found out why meshpage becomes useful in the future. There’s some annoying gap in the fabric of the phone market. Some existing technologies that were spread to all over europe had some flaws which the large companies are unable to solve before their deadlines are killing the development activities.

To fill that gap caused by release timing, meshpage was built with the technologies that were not available in the product that were distributed 100 mimllion times. The focus for “rejected technologies” is what saves meshpage’s technology. Once the gap in the technologies available becomes visible, meshpage will become popular destination for those people who can see the problem.

But I’m still waiting for that to happen. It is guaranteed to happen once people start forgetting how their phone worked in the past.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

They still remember our 100 million gadgets and keep staring at the screens/remembering how they work.

Actually, no – nobody remembers your 100 million gadgets beyond the fact that you won’t shut up about it. Work you’ve done in the past for a phone model that is no longer in service or available in the market is not as captivating as you think it is.

For that matter, why would this be important? A lot of the complaints you have about the public domain are focused on your view that people should not have access to older content so it can make way for newer content. You personally claimed that the public domain must be destroyed, because the less favorable alternative would be providing tech support for older models of hardware. Why then would you rely on your consumers’ nostalgia for phones that you have no intention of providing?

To fill that gap caused by release timing, meshpage was built with the technologies that were not available in the product that were distributed 100 mimllion times

So Meshpage was built using technology for a phone that couldn’t meet the shipping deadline? If you’re trying to fish for sympathy because your personal project got killed off, mate, the best I can say is that sucks. But that happens to plenty of people, to plenty of projects. Literally nothing about Meshpage is going to get people to start investing. Especially not in the name of copyright.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

So Meshpage was built using technology for a phone that couldn’t meet the shipping deadline?

I think you understood my words wrong.

The phone tech is not used by meshpage, since that’s owned by some large company responsible for phones.

Instead I used the tech that was not available in the phone. I.e. if phone doesn’t use opengl, I’m free to build my 3d stuff with opengl. And things like that. I.e. it means meshpage will be built with technologies that the large company rejected from the marketplace.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

I think you understood my words wrong.

No, I think that much was quite clear when you chose to say in your previous response:

Some existing technologies that were spread to all over europe had some flaws which the large companies are unable to solve before their deadlines are killing the development activities.

It’s not news to me. In game development there are plenty of intended features that have to be cut because deadlines exist. You wanted to implement something, and couldn’t. Now you’ve turned it into your one chip on your shoulder to rage against the rest of the planet with.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

In game development there are plenty of intended features that have to be cut because deadlines exist.

There is easy solution to this problem. First you implement your software with deadlines and release the software to world and dog.

Once you’ve finished that task, you need something more difficult, and then you can actually remove the deadline, throw your programmers to the wolfes and require them to implement all the rejected features that was missed in the first batch of your software. Also the system needs to be rewritten from the ground up, completely from scratch, without using the technologies in your previous game. Only rejected features are allowed. Also your moon walk needs to be done without nasa’s help and they wont help you market your space pens for you.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

“There is easy solution to this problem. First you implement your software with deadlines and release the software to world and dog.”

The solution to deadlines is… deadlines?

“Only rejected features are allowed”

Well, that does explain the poor state of your software and why nobody wants to use it…

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Well, that does explain the poor state of your software and why nobody wants to use it…

The software is actually in two parts. The first part has 150 million instances all around europe. the 2nd part completes the features in the first part. Think what happens when they realize that everyone who used the first part will need the 2nd part to complete the features that we offer.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

And yet, no one who does what you do

Unfortunately there’s very small number of such people available in the world.

They would need to be:
1) broken
2) awesome
3) popular beyond belief
4) visible everywhere
5) perfectly implemented
6) more accurate than atomic clocks
7) always on time for deadline
8) not following regular patterns
9) doesn’t work like normal humans
10) marked as a robot instead
11) failing are-you-a-robot test
12) hard working
13) more complex than your loan application
14) built from spaghetti
15) but all dependencies still exactly correct
16) solving world’s biggest problems

See, it’s just impossible for anyone to meet all these requirements.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13

See, it’s just impossible for anyone to meet all these requirements.

About the only thing that can be gleaned from your mess of a list is that crunch time during software development and coding is an inherently unsustainable process. And even the kinds of programmers who have spent years in crunch would still not commit murder in the name of copyright. The fact that you are completely okay with this is not a compliment on your character, it’s a disgrace.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Most authors also don’t take 70 years to write ONE book.

Why you think I only wrote one book?

There’s mega motion, speedrel, phones, effects demo, 100 games project, meshpage, builder tool, 3d model viewer.

I don’t see why you chose that statement that is so easy to dismiss by listing the works that you have created.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Why you think I only wrote one book?

Because individuals who rant about why copyright should be endlessly extended typically produced maybe one significant work over their career, and focus exclusively on why that one work hasn’t made them obscenely rich.

There’s mega motion, speedrel, phones, effects demo, 100 games project, meshpage, builder tool, 3d model viewer.

Literally none of this was ever brought up in your time here. At best, if what you can say is that you contributed to phone OSes and particle systems, that is at best baseline for someone working in your field. It’s certainly not a set of accomplishments so grand that you’d be entitled to millions of dollars from your government.

I don’t see why you chose that statement that is so easy to dismiss by listing the works that you have created.

You personally chose to not say any of this in your time here. In fact I did manage to maybe find a resume attributable to you a few months back. Which has since gone offline maybe a day or two after I linked to it.

If you go out of your way to make yourself as obscure as possible, don’t be surprised when people don’t take you seriously due to your lack of open credentials.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Because individuals who rant about why copyright should be endlessly extended typically produced maybe one significant work over their career

But the people who rant about copyright must be killed and author’s compensation discarded didn’t even bother to create one copyrighted work over their career.

and focus exclusively on why that one work hasn’t made them obscenely rich.

Well, usually that “one work” is the latest one. I.e. the one that has best chance of being accepted by the community. Do you think that I would try to sell you amiga game that was created in 1994? There’s only very small chance of getting that passed by your filters, so I focus on one product (meshpage) which is likely to work on computers that you (as a user) are using. Amiga hardware went broken long time ago, when people travelled around the world with amiga in a backpack, and the newer computers were manufactured by some different company and was not compatible with the amiga floppy drives.

So there are technical limitations with passing 30 years old software as a sales item, and thus most authors just choose their latest work as the item of sale.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

But the people who rant about copyright must be killed and author’s compensation discarded didn’t even bother to create one copyrighted work over their career.

The one who obsesses over the violent murder, rape, and pillaging of individuals who disagree with copyright maximalism is you, not me. You can stop projecting your own twisted, sickening desires upon others and making it their responsibility.

Do you think that I would try to sell you amiga game that was created in 1994?

You were proud enough of it to put it on your resume, for one. For another, given that you keep trying to emphasize that the fact that copyright mandates the government to pay you for your effort, why the hell aren’t you pushing your 1994 Amiga game? Port it for all consoles, re-release it as a definitive edition, get someone to put it on the App store officially! Literally doing anything related to your 1994 project would get you more interest than shilling a 3D engine nobody wants. I say that as a gamer, you’d be more likely to get interest in that instead.

So long as your 1994 game hasn’t hit the public domain yet – which it hasn’t – why aren’t you using the copyright to profit off of it like you keep claiming copyright gives you the right to do?

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

why the hell aren’t you pushing your 1994 Amiga game?

I lost the source code when amiga hardware broke down during travel from Lahti to Tampere in around 1994-1995. Also the pc hardware that replaced it, couldn’t read the floppy drives that were used in amiga. So the possibility to maintain the work disappeared for computer compability reasons and longevity of computer hardware.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

I lost the source code when amiga hardware broke down during travel from Lahti to Tampere in around 1994-1995. Also the pc hardware that replaced it, couldn’t read the floppy drives that were used in amiga. So the possibility to maintain the work disappeared for computer compability reasons and longevity of computer hardware.

It’s almost like there should have been a better way of archiving your work and making it available for the future. Oh, but that’s right, you don’t believe in that because copyright believes that all work should eventually expire. What a shame. The copyright that you worship couldn’t save you. I’d feel sorry for you if you weren’t already such a demonstrable psychopath.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

“I lost the source code when amiga hardware broke down during travel from Lahti to Tampere in around 1994-1995.”

So, we can add “backups” to the basic concepts you don’t understand?

“Also the pc hardware that replaced it, couldn’t read the floppy drives that were used in amiga.”

Huh. There’s archives of Amiga software, which can be run in emulators to this day. It seems like other people found a workarund.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

There are workarounds to Tero’s problems.

workarounds are not acceptable though. You’re fixing the error from wrong location if you do a workaround. Correct way to fix problems is by
1) identify the correct location
2) fix it from that location

When your workaround process goes the wrong way:
a) identify correct location
b) skip/bypass the location

This workaround process is explicitly marked dangerous in legal statues and hacking laws and “bypassing technological protection mechanisms” laws are explicitly saying that this “workaround” process is illegal.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Yes, vested copyright interests managed to get laws approved that favored their extremist principles. Some, like the wife of Sonny Bono, admitted that if not for the fact that it would cause a lot of public backlash, they’d have bought laws that extended copyright’s duration to infinity.

And yet, while you proudly claim that many of these “workarounds” are illegal, plenty of people get around them every day. Because nobody enjoys having to pay for something at artificially increased prices, several times over the cost of manufacturing. Nobody likes being told they can’t back up their data because someone thinks that storage devices can be used for piracy. Can you imagine if today, all the files you have on Meshpage were destroyed and you were told you can’t back it up, because copyright law?

The government of Australia told their citizens to use VPNs to get around geoblocking restrictions because they realized that Australians were paying unfair prices for access to content. When even governments are fed up with the extremes that copyright law insists that they follow, good luck enforcing copyright the way you want to.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Because nobody enjoys having to pay for something at artificially increased prices, several times over the cost of manufacturing.

This is a bad fallacy. You simply cannot assume that if writing some piece of horrible spaghetti source code takes 150,000 dollars, that the author has 100,000 customers queuing for the product and you should then get it with the price of 1.5 dollars. The costs are not divided this way when we talk about software. Initial cost of course dominates, but there is also cost associated with making the product available in your area of the world. So there are actual overheads in marketing and product placement which increases the 1.5 dollar amount and the right price for the product is more like 150 dollars. Exactly the same as what I asked in itch.io from my software. And all this assumes that I can sell 100,000 units of the software. The current counts are more like 500 units. Now the right price for the product would be 150,000/500 + overhead, and stands at 450e a piece.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

This is a bad fallacy.

It’s not a “fallacy”, because “fallacy” assumes that the statement you quoted was based on mistaken beliefs. I guarantee that most people, if not all people, hate paying more than they consider fair. Nobody enjoys the idea that they’re being scammed.

You’re more than welcome to prove otherwise, but I highly doubt you pay for food, rental, fuel, entertainment, and computer hardware at several times the manufacturing price as a matter of principle. I’m quite sure you don’t pay for the advertising costs of your hernekeitto.

You simply cannot assume that if writing some piece of horrible spaghetti source code takes 150,000 dollars, that the author has 100,000 customers queuing for the product and you should then get it with the price of 1.5 dollars.

Nobody has argued this. You keep trying to project this idea that nobody wants you to make a profit, which is entirely different from nobody wants to foot the bill for your business incompetence.

And all this assumes that I can sell 100,000 units of the software.

Again… you chose to make your content free. You were confident that you could make bank on this personal project of yours. You were personally assured of this genius business strategy. That it didn’t pan out the way you thought is not the government’s fault. It’s yours.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

You were confident that you could make bank on this personal project of yours. You were personally assured of this genius business strategy.

Unfortunately none of the above is true. I already knew at age 10 that software and money are incompatible because software can be freely copied and money does not have that property and thus price of software is going to approach zero. So I never imagined that I can “make a bank” from the project. This is why the project is a hobby (and you can’t talk about genius business strategy), and it cannot change its status from hobby to business until the markets are fixing software area status to something more compatible with properties of money. But this is why killing the piracy market is important, since they’re the ones where this idea comes from that people do not want to pay for software/copying the software is free/thus everyone should get their software without payment.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12

So I never imagined that I can “make a bank” from the project.

To “make bank” means to make a lot of money. The least you could do is actually look up English that you don’t understand instead of butchering it all the time.

This is why the project is a hobby (and you can’t talk about genius business strategy), and it cannot change its status from hobby to business until the markets are fixing software area status to something more compatible with properties of money

You’ve talked about genius business strategy all the time when you’re here. You’ve claimed that your website was the best it could be, same with your London bus ads, and the only reason why you’re not filthy rich is because piracy exists. Hell, you’ve personally claimed that you expect to retire from the proceeds of Meshpage in a few decades, precisely because you insisted that it would be profitable in the long run. This is the first time you’ve explicitly mentioned that all Meshpage amounts to is a “hobby”.

But this is why killing the piracy market is important

Blender is not part of that market. Your only hope for competing with Blender is praying that they get nailed for copyright infringement somehow.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Blender is not part of that market.

correct. Blender’s main failure is that it is popular.

Your only hope for competing with Blender is praying that they get nailed for copyright infringement somehow.

There is another niche where we can excel. It’s the web deployment area. Blender has significant problems deploying the output of blender in web. Video files after some cloud rendering is their only alternative, but it has no interactive elements in it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

“Blender’s main failure is that it is popular.”

Well, we established a number of times that you seem to live in a different reality to most, so claiming that you’re successful because nobody uses your shit and Blender failed by being popular isn’t a surprise.

“Video files after some cloud rendering is their only alternative, but it has no interactive elements in it.”

Remember when you whined that people were looking at your 1996-era animations and then surprised everyone by informing them that there were interactive controls not mentioned anywhere in the UI? Good times.

You still don’t inform users of the controls, let alone new users to the site that this is what the advantage of the software is meant to be, but good on you for having such features that nobody will ever see.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15

so claiming that you’re successful because nobody uses your shit and Blender failed by being popular isn’t a surprise.

Yes, I can “reserse” the keywords used to evaluate the products simply because I implemented both the successful ones (==symbian) and the area where symbian’s successes were turned to failures. (==meshpage). So I get special permission by the government to turn these failures to successes and successes to failures. This is very powerful property that took 27 years to implement. So you can’t claim that I received the permission without doing any work.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:16

So I get special permission by the government to turn these failures to successes and successes to failures. This is very powerful property that took 27 years to implement.

You making a personal claim that you can simply “believe” yourself into becoming successful and “believing” other people into becoming failures is nothing more than your imagination. The government is not legally obliged to actually make your delusion a reality.

If this were actually the case, you wouldn’t be here trying to weaponize critics into somehow convincing people to use Meshpage.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

“So I never imagined that I can “make a bank” from the project”

Yet, the reason you’re so roundly mocked here on a regular basis is because you claimed that you deserved a mansion because another coder got one, that you’d be a millionaire if only your competitors were banned and that your failed bus adverts meant you were owed money.

Even your own fictions aren’t consistent, why would anyone trust your software?

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

you claimed that you deserved a mansion because another coder got one

noone ever talked about some another coder.

The real reason is that
1) I actually built a tool
2) It’s common practise in internet to push your requirements to be implemented by a community
3) and once the requirement is community’s responsibility, noone else can implement it

But
a) looks like this community is built by lazy bastards
b) they have significant troubles using the tool since they couldn’t get a cube to the screen
c) but the problem really is that they didn’t try to do their jobs properly

that you’d be a millionaire if only your competitors were banned

Yes. If competitors are doing illegal stuff, we should call the bluff. It’s not feasible to let them run the show while noone else in the world can take over their business simply because they are violating the law to do it.

your failed bus adverts meant you were owed money.

I didn’t even try to extract money from the market in the advert. It’s just that the experiment demonstrated watertight that getting money from the market sufficient amounts is impossible. Thus the only alternative left is that government pays for the fun.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14

noone ever talked about some another coder.

You regularly brought up Notch in your earlier posts. I’d find them, but they were made in a time before you were honest enough to have an actual account.

they have significant troubles using the tool since they couldn’t get a cube to the screen

You personally admitted that you put the most useful features behind an invisible paywall. If you want actually useful information or feedback, you could provide users with a test build or a demo – but you’re a cheapskate who detests other people, so I’m not surprised you haven’t considered that option. It continues to astound that you ever considered making this software for children, when you consider how much you loathe having to share the planet with others.

If competitors are doing illegal stuff, we should call the bluff.

And how’s that worked out for you so far? You keep speaking of these crusades against Blender, AutoCAD and the like, but have yet to actually commit to mounting a lawsuit to get them wiped off the market.

The truth is that you don’t have a single legal leg to stand on besides vaguely insinuating that any system that is compatible with .mov, .gif and .mp4 are pirates, and the only kind of law firm who would take up your case are precisely the kind of legal representation that’s rotting in jail right now.

It’s just that the experiment demonstrated watertight that getting money from the market sufficient amounts is impossible.

Ads don’t make you money, they’re for creating business leads. Even so, lead conversion – convincing ordinary people to become potential business customers – has pretty terrible ratios even for the best companies. This is not a problem that copyright law will solve for you.

AbolishDisney (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

But the people who rant about copyright must be killed and author’s compensation discarded didn’t even bother to create one copyrighted work over their career.

Completely false. I’ve created multiple copyrighted works, and I still think copyright terms should be reduced. I know I’m not the only creator who feels this way, either.

Also, no one here is arguing that “copyright must be killed”. Saying that copyrights shouldn’t last forever isn’t the same thing as saying they shouldn’t exist at all.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Speak for yourself. I’d kill copyright with my bare hands if I could.

It might be possible. But you first need to have alternative that ensure compensation for authors. And given that your alternative is unlikely to gather much support from the population that needs to pay the bill, we doubt the solution is solving any significant problems from copyright.

Wyrm (profile) says:

As a reminder, the public domain itself is a minefield.

Want to adapt the Wizard of Oz? It is in the public domain, but you can’t use any of the elements introduced in the movie, like the red shoes. They were silver in the original novel, so the ruby shoes has been deemed a “creative element” belonging to the movie copyright holders.
Most people remember the movie, the red shoes, but if you make an adaptation or other derived work using the famous “ruby slippers”, this can be held against you in a copyright dispute.
It’s a nasty case when an original work is in the public domain but derived works are not. Violations may occur even as people try to make something in good faith.

Same thing with characters. Sherlock Holmes is famously in the public domain… but only for some of the early novels. The latest ones are still copyrighted until next year. Which means you can write a Sherlock Holmes novel, but you have to make sure not to incorporate any element from the still-copyrighted works.

Not to mention things like orphaned works or holders that are difficult to trace because there is no official record of who owns what. Try something creative and a movie studio might spring up on you with a dusty folder of paperwork that never saw the light of day since the 1940s.

There are even times when the rights holder is not even sure they hold the rights. I vaguely remember some author asking a potential right holder if they have the rights and want to negotiate a deal for a derived work he created. The response was in the line of “we’re not sure, but if you publish it, we will check and sue you.” They didn’t want to check and confirm one way or the other until there was a potential lawsuit to be filed.

All this to say that arbitrary 20 years extensions is just one issue with this overly complicated field of copyright law. But it compounds with other flaws. So clearing out the other flaws is also long overdue, as they will be made more and more obvious as the duration increases.
At the very least, this cannot work at scale without a clear public registration system.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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...