The Ellen Show Issues Copyright Takedown On Transformative Video Commenting On Her Friendship With President Bush

from the copyright-as-censorship dept

Another day, another example of copyright being used as censorship. As you may have heard, there was a bit of controversy this weekend when talk show host Ellen DeGeneres attended the Dallas Cowboys game with former President George W. Bush. This made lots of people quite upset as they argued that being friends with Bush was either support for "tolerance of hate and discrimination" or an effort at "whitewashing... his manifest crimes." Others argued, as Ellen did, that there are good reasons to be kind to people you fundamentally disagree with.

Wherever you come down on that debate, hopefully you can agree that, no matter what, the Ellen Show was wrong to use a copyright claim to take down a transformative video, created by Rafael Shimunov, that took Ellen's "be nice to each other" monologue about the situation and superimposed images on the back screen of what appears to be scenes of devastation in the Middle East that came about from President Bush's policies. This is, of course, classic fair use. Taking a bit of video (1 minute and 46 seconds) from Ellen's show, and using it in a transformative way to provide commentary and criticism of Ellen's speech. Even if you think it's unfair or heavy handed, it still should quite clearly be protected by fair use. But, instead:

That's the original tweet posting the video, showing that it has been "disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner."

Of course, in response to this, a whole bunch of folks are now reposting the video on Twitter. So far, (as I type this), they've mostly remained online -- which at least suggests that the original takedown was not an automated takedown notice or machine recognition situation, but a deliberate report. Indeed, other tweets suggest that the "social media manager" of The Ellen Show sent a DMCA takedown over the video.

It's possible (likely?) that this lower level staffer just thought she was stopping "copyright infringement" (and maybe didn't even realize the transformative nature of the video), but it still highlights the incredible censorial powers of copyright law and the DMCA, in which, by mere accusation, the content may get deleted -- especially regarding a time-sensitive and politically relevant discussion.

Still, as happens when these situations come about, tons of people are now reposting the video:

Perhaps this is something that Ellen might want to discuss with Barbra Streisand the next time she has Streisand on her show...

Filed Under: censorship, commentary, dmca, ellen degeneres, fair use, george w. bush, political speech, transformative
Companies: the ellen show, twitter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Phaedrus (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 3:31am

    So can we finally change the name ..

    from the Streisand to the DeGeneres effect?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 3:53am

    It's not DMCA but they could argue it falls afoul of defamation law because there is a lot of misunderstanding about what it takes to be a war criminal.

    Although torture policies may be pretty close....

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 4:13am

    Re:

    ... Anyway there's an argument to be made that defamation isn't fair use since by your description it doesn't actual document war crimes, just the horrible effects of war.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 4:41am

    I must say, watching the MSM and liberal rehabilitation of Junior has been very entertaining, He went from the most hated man alive who stole the election to being the kindly old grandpa; giving candy to Ms Obama, dancing with kids, painting his feet.
    Haha, that old rascal, always getting himself in cute situations.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 4:46am

    Re:

    Junior will always have a positive following by some for going after the world trade center attack perpetrators

    I am too conflicted about his legacy to have a strong opinion

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 4:55am

    Re: Re:

    What was defaming?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 4:55am

    Re:

    Bush 43 is no saint.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 5:10am

    Re: Re: Re:

    War criminal is a legal term and it is laid out in the Geneva conventions for the United States. Other countries have the International Criminal Court but that is not US law. By the description of the video from the article it doesn't show actual war crimes. It shows horrible and regrettable effects of war that fall short of war crimes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 5:37am

    Re:

    Not defamation, as shown by the many bad defamation suits being covered here and elsewhere. Not that it prevents people from still thinking defamation is any time someone says a mean thing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. icon
    restless94110 (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:02am

    Hypocracy Much?

    And not a word in your article about the exact same issue of Trump's use of Nickleback?

    Wow, what a blind man.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:06am

    Re: Re:

    "Junior will always have a positive following by some for going after the world trade center attack perpetrators"

    What a shame he then went on to start a needless war based on lies that cost more American lives than 9/11 did, along with a huge cost of civilian lives and destruction of American values in the process.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "War criminal is a legal term"

    It also has colloquial definitions, which the actions in the video fit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. identicon
    A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:13am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I disagree that he started the war.

    I also disagree that it is needless.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:38am

    Might want to have your glasses checked

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "War criminal is a legal term"

    Whether a legal term is used, or not, has little or nothing to do with the determination of defaming.
    The statement in question is most likely opinion, that is my opinion fwiw.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, that's your prerogative, but I very much disagree based on the evidence at hand.

    Either way, he would be viewed a lot more positively by a lot more people had he stuck to Afghanistan.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. identicon
    Pixelation, 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:49am

    Re: Hypocracy Much?

    "Wow, what a blind man."

    Well, Trump couldn't cut it as a poor man stealing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I disagree that he started the war."

    Which one?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:53am

    Re: Might want to have your glasses checked

    It was less than a week ago, perhaps the poster did not see it. :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. icon
    Ed (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Then you're either ignorant or deluded.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:57am

    It is difficult, if not impossible, to see something as being “transformative” when all that appears to have been done is overlay one video over another and without any change whatsoever to the video secured by copyright. Unless, of course, one is simply anti-copyright and misses no opportunity to rail against this longstanding law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. identicon
    A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:05am

    Re: Re: Re:

    American values haven't changed all that much either

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. identicon
    A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:09am

    Re:

    Since it's being discussed here it is now "newsworthy" as fair use. There are many ways things can become fair use.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24. identicon
    Rocky, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:13am

    Re:

    The video is a form of social commentary which counts as transformative.

    Someone could have taken the DeGeneres video and replaced her face with a derp face throughout and it would have been transformative even though it would take minimal effort.

    Unless, of course, one is simply pro-copyright and misses no opportunity to use copyright as a corporate censorship-tool.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:14am

    Re:

    All you have done is place one word after another, describing the transformation, and then denying it is transformative, no sense to be found there.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26. icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:15am

    Re:

    It is difficult, if not impossible, to see something as being "transformative" when one fails to recognize the purpose of copyright as explained in the Constitution, or is blind to the fact that the background video is the commentary. Unless, of course, one is simply a copyright maximalist who misses no opportunity to rail against any use clearly allowed by the longstanding fair use rules.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. icon
    PaulT (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "American values haven't changed all that much either"

    But the number of things you accept that violate those supposed values has certainly increased. Values mean nothing unless you defend them, and sadly more people seem willing to ignore violations so long as it's their political team doing the violating.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:32am

    Re:

    How's that Paul Hansmeier defense fund coming along, Slonecker?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:43am

    Re: Re:

    I've never met a saint. Do you know any?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. identicon
    A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The internet means we are more aware of longstanding issues, not a fundamental change of behavior by those in power.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:48am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Let's make George one.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    King George? The one who prosecuted war on the colonies over their objection to taxation without representation?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 8:17am

    Re: Re:

    Compared to 45, anyone would look like a saint.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 8:18am

    Re: Re:

    Perhaps you might consider doing the persons here a favor by explaining to them the purpose underlying Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution. I suspect your response would likely reveal where your understanding of the law went off the tracks.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 8:59am

    Re:

    You could just save everyone some time and write "I don't know what transformative means."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Using that logic, I cannot call former New York City Policeman Daniel Pantaleo a murderer because he has never been found guilty of the death of Eric Garner. Your argument is invalid.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37. identicon
    A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's a grey area. If he was acquitted and you kept calling him a murderer in the press or something he could sue you for defamation. Since he's never been charged he may or may not actually find a court who would listen to his lawsuit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38. icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    But Pantaleo wasn’t charged to begin with. And neither was Bush 43 for war crimes. Do crimes not exist if nobody will prosecute them?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39. icon
    nasch (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:46am

    Re:

    Where did you get the idea that the video must be changed in order for the use to be transformative?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40. icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:46am

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's easy. Corrupt Congresscritters reacting to payments from big copyright holders who never created anything.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. identicon
    A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    First: "Innocent until proven guilty" which is why in the professional press you see the word "alleged" all the time.

    Second: If he wanted to sue then he may or may not be able to find a court that wouldn't throw out his case given the circumstances but decisions could go either way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:51am

    The amount of effort put into a transformative work is not relevant to whether it is transformative.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43. icon
    Rico R. (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 10:20am

    The penultimate embedded tweet in this article now has ALSO been taken down due to a DMCA Notice.

    When I say, “Be kind to one another,” I don’t mean only the people who think the same way you do. I mean, “Be kind to everyone.”

    Tell me how taking down a transformative video with copyright because you don’t like it’s message doesn’t fly in the face of this message? Ellen DeGeneres, you’ve got some explaining to do!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 11:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Do crimes not exist if nobody will prosecute them?"

    Apparently so, in the minds of those who benefit, however the rest of us disagree.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 11:15am

    Re: Re:

    Caselaw, among others.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 11:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "not a fundamental change of behavior by those in power."

    You are claiming that things have not changed in the past three plus years?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 11:21am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, I remember that billboard back in 2009 where W is smiling and asking Miss Me Yet?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48. identicon
    A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Historically we haven't swung to any new extremes based on past governmental behavior. I'm not saying that everything is good because of that but the bad things are bad in a way the US has dealt with before.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 12:08pm

    Re: Special education Much?

    https://www.techdirt.com/submitstory.php

    I can’t call you retarded anymore because that is an ableist slur. So I shall call you “special.”

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Got any case citations?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 12:47pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    “I don’t have to give you the proof! Go read it! It’s written in books! You just won’t read it! It’s all over the Internet! Go read it! I have the proof.”

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 2:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yawn...more musings from yet another person unashamed to weigh in on matters for which he or she possesses no substantive experience. Have you even read for comprehension any of the provisions set out in Title 17 of the USC?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 2:19pm

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 2:30pm

    "war criminal is a legal term"

    Yeah, it was a common argument at the time that mores and ethics didn't exist except under the authority of a justice system that would prosecute them. It's legal was the going argument to justify, well, a lot of terrible policies.

    Abu Graib, black sites, extraordinary rendition and the CIA Extrajudicial Detention and Interrogation Program were entirely legal, and Donald Rumsfeld himself declared that according to US policy, waterboarding is not torture. I'm not sure we've ever bothered to make a policy change to firmly establish otherwise, though the US has claimed not to torture countless times (we outsourced our torture as well as declaring our methods not torture.)

    This all served as precedent to note that wiretapping and mass surveillance were (and still are) legal under American law, so are drone strikes which still are killing innocent civilians in foreign theaters of conflict at alarming rates. Techdirts archives serve as a painful reference source as to how it all unfolded in the aughts.

    Maybe we shouldn't depend on established systems of justice to tell us what is right or wrong. They sucked at it sixteen years ago, and they suck at it even more now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 2:36pm

    Re: Hypocracy Much?

    And not a word in your article about the exact same issue of Trump's use of Nickleback?

    Right. Because this has nothing to do with that, and we already wrote about that story when it happened:

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191003/10285843115/twitter-removes-nickelback-meme-tru mp-tweets-leaves-all-others-up.shtml

    Wow, what a blind man.

    Says the guy who apparently didn't even bother to look to see if we wrote about some other story.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 2:37pm

    Historically we haven't swung to any new extremes based on past governmental behavior.

    The sitting president of the United States openly solicited a foreign country to interfere with a U.S. election (i.e., he asked China to investigate a political rival). He did so with the implied goal of using that interference to aid in the winning of his next election.

    I can’t recall any other presidential candidate or any other president ever asking a foreign country to dig up dirt on their political rivals so that person can better win an election — never mind doing it on camera for the whole world to see and hear. So do you still believe things haven’t swung to “any new extremes”?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 2:38pm

    I hate myself for saying this, but I would rather have Dubya in the White House again if that would get Trump out of it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58. identicon
    A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 2:55pm

    Re:

    I have read brief sentences and paragraphs about what our founding fathers (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin) may have done with the British and especially the French government to dig up dirt before.

    There are stupid enough stories to be somewhat similar to Trump asking for assistance in that way but I don't even care to read the longer descriptions of the allegations of those long ago events or even look for them again.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59. icon
    nasch (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 2:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Have you even read for comprehension any of the provisions set out in Title 17 of the USC?

    Title 17 is pretty big. What part exactly specifies requirements for fair use with regard to video editing?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 3:08pm

    Dubya instead of Trump

    The thing is President Bush was awful enough for us to bicker about torturing and massacring innocent Muslims, but not awful enough to drive us towards radical reform.

    Hopefully Trump is awful enough for us to make that change. And I'd rather have him for four more years to compel us to set the nation right, than someone like Biden or Harris who will serve as a band-aid on a deep-festering wound.

    It may be too late anyway, and unless the Democrats sweep in 2020 and then make good on immense overwhelming reforms, we may still see someone even worse than Trump in 2024 or 2028 when not enough has changed and elections are still rigged.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61. icon
    Matthew Cline (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 3:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So after OJ Simpson was acquitted he could have sued everyone who still called him a murderer?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62. identicon
    A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 4:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't know about everyone.

    Some people such as news organizations or people distributing flyers for commercial/political reasons... yes.

    There are other instances such as private speech where he shouldn't be able to find out that was said and he wouldn't suffer damage from it. Probably not in that case.

    IANAL and you should ask someone who has more expertise in defamation law about obscure aspects of the law in that area if you want a more complete answer about how publicly you have to speak for it to be defamation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 5:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    War criminals a term that was made back when some giant dongle who eliminated a whole line of haircuts and mustaches and quite frankly a badass sounding name “Adolf mean noble wolf thanks for making the 40s horrible for everyone”

    Now it’s some guy who got in Because people liked his dad “or Florida” and his Vice President probably made more policy then he himself did.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 5:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Bush was the one that started things.
    But he was not the one who decided what got started.
    “Cough Cheney “cough” “rummy” cough”

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65. icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:54pm

    This much is clear.

    Whoever started the Iraq War was a Real Dick.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:40pm

    Re:

    There's something about copyright law that basically turns the brain of whoever uses it into lukewarm tapioca pudding.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yawn...more musings from yet another person unashamed to weigh in on matters for which he or she possesses no substantive experience.

    An excellent self-description. Bravo.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    §107 explained, according to copyright.gov :

    Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.

    Which does not seem to exclude changing the context of content counting as transformative.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Perhaps you missed the fact that no change was made to the expression contained in the original work. To my knowledge, no court has to date expanded the concept of transformation to the breadth you and others here so glibly toss around like you actually know what you are talking about.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    took Ellen's "be nice to each other" monologue about the situation and superimposed images on the back screen of what appears to be scenes of devastation in the Middle East that

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 10:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Given critique and commentary of a piece all but require said piece to stay mostly the same to work it would be quite the stretch to say that adding commentary to highlight an apparently contradiction wouldn't qualify given such a use would easily meet the first and second parts of the definition(adding new content in the form of critique/commentary, with the purpose of that new content to examine/deconstruct the original work), and probably meet the third(it's possible someone could check out a critique rather than the original, but given the significant different the numbers are likely very low.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72. icon
    Madd the Sane (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 10:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think he meant George Washington.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73. icon
    Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 3:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    He had no business being there given that the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. It's like me beating you up because Blue said something to annoy me.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74. icon
    Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 3:03am

    Re: This much is clear.

    Whoever starts any war... Ah, never mind.

    Bush was president and signed both off. Not okay, and no good reason to go to either. Ergo, war criminal, along with Tony Blair.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75. icon
    Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 5:31am

    Re: "war criminal is a legal term"

    ^This. Shame I can only give it one Insightful vote.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76. icon
    Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 5:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yep.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77. icon
    Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 5:42am

    Re: Re:

    Can we please agree that what's been going on since Carter's administration has broken with norms accepted by the public since before then?

    When I was a kid, I expected people in public office to conduct themselves with dignity and propriety, and to be removed from office if they didn't -- see Profumo for details. He spent the next few decades rehabilitating his image via charity work after messing about with a "good time girl" who also played footsie with Russian spies.

    During the Thatcher administration, any MP (even Cabinet members) who stepped out of line got chucked out of office pretty damn quick. I'm thinking of philanderer Cecil Parkinson here.

    Then Bill Clinton got a public spanking for messing with Lewinsky. I know that some of his accusers had their little bits on the side at the same time, but I didn't know it then. The point is, politicians who misbehaved were SEEN to be punished for breaking the rules (Clinton still has to put up with jibes about his conduct). These days, anything goes. There's no bottom where vice and graft are concerned and, for those at the top of the greasy pole, no consequences.

    Am I the only one who totally needs to see some toerag get impeached if only to preserve the idea that doing Naughty Things has consequences? Nobody should be above the law, but today they are.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78. icon
    Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 5:46am

    Re: Dubya instead of Trump

    I can totally see that, Uriel. Instead of rooting out corruption, it's okay if our guy does it.

    The Neocons are the worst shower I've ever seen in terms of their attitudes to People Who Are Not Like Us. The more openly fascist politicians, etc., wear their stinking evil on their sleeves but the Neocons are able to get enough makeup on the pig to make it pass for almost human. Their ability to present themselves as the adults in the room (with little in the way of challenge) is what keeps them in power. We need to be more willing to call them out on their crap.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79. identicon
    A Guy, 11 Oct 2019 @ 5:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    They weren't all from Saudi Arabia and they aren't thought to have been sponsored by the Saudi government in any way or we wouldn't try to help them. Some were from all over the world especially if you look at the networks that assisted with the attack not just the hijackers on the planes.

    I have no information about Iraq in particular and you shouldn't construe that as me having evidence of an Iraqi's complicity.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80. identicon
    A Guy, 11 Oct 2019 @ 5:53am

    Re: Re: This much is clear.

    I think you are someone who doesn't know the difference between a war criminal and someone who has violated the Law of Nations in the course of a war.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81. icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 5:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe he meant George Carlin.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82. identicon
    Talmyr, 11 Oct 2019 @ 5:59am

    Re: Re: Re: This much is clear.

    Like that makes a difference to all the innocents and soldiers who have been injured or killed in fighting these wars...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83. icon
    nasch (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 6:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Perhaps you missed the fact that no change was made to the expression contained in the original work. To my knowledge, no court has to date expanded the concept of transformation to the breadth you and others here so glibly toss around like you actually know what you are talking about.

    "Libraries that provided a search engine company (Google) with books to scan were protected by fair use when the libraries later used the resulting digital scans for three purposes: preservation, a full-text search engine, and electronic access for disabled patrons who could not read the print versions."

    Obviously they didn't change anything about the text.

    "A publisher of monster magazines from the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s sued the creator and publisher of a book, Famous Monster Movie Art of Basil Gogos... The district court determined that the use was transformative. The use was for a biography/retrospective of the artist, not simply a series of covers of magazines devoted to movie monsters."

    Again, no change to the art.

    "A seven-second clip from the Ed Sullivan TV show was used in a staged musical history (“The Jersey Boys”) based on the career of the musical group the Four Seasons. The use was transformative (“Being selected by Ed Sullivan to perform on his show was evidence of the band’s enduring prominence in American music,” the judge wrote in the ruling. “By using it as a biographical anchor, [the defendant] put the clip to its own transformative ends.”)"

    How many of these do you need?

    "In White v. West Publishing, the district court ruled that legal databases such as Westlaw and Lexis could incorporate legal briefs into their databases, as such searchable use of court-filed documents was transformative (and therefore excusable as a fair use). The use was transformative because the lawyers created the briefs to assist their clients, but the legal services were using the briefs as research tools."

    https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-what-transformative.html

    And you still have not provided a scrap of evidence for your claim that the video must be altered in order for the use to be fair use. Clearly this is because there is no such evidence, but would you be willing to admit that?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84. icon
    PaulT (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 6:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "They weren't all from Saudi Arabia"

    Nor were they from Iraq.

    "Some were from all over the world"

    But mainly Saudi. Likewise, over 90 nationalities were killed in the 9/11 attacks, but you wouldn't know that anyone but Americans were involved from the general reaction to it.

    "I have no information about Iraq in particular"

    Yet, you stated that it was not needless and that you knew that it wasn't Bush who started it. Interesting...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2019 @ 6:50am

    Re: "war criminal is a legal term"

    Oh hey, that reminds me, Sean Hannity said he'd be willing to be waterboarded for charity.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2019 @ 6:54am

    Re: Re: Re: This much is clear.

    Please, do continue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2019 @ 6:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Historically we haven't swung to any new extremes"

    Putting ones head in the sand does not make the threat go away. I realize that lying to one's self can help but in the end makes you crazy. So it's better to be honest and face reality, or at least that is what many try to do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2019 @ 7:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Now that I agree with :)
    I miss that guy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2019 @ 7:08am

    Re: Dubya instead of Trump

    "unless the Democrats sweep in 2020 and then make good on immense overwhelming reforms"

    It would benefit everyone if the corporate world were to resist the urge to stomp any and all efforts to effect positive change. I find it difficult to believe the corporate world thinks everything is just fine as it is. Why are they so petrified of any change? They blame the stockholders demands for profit, I think there is more to it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2019 @ 7:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The internet is my proof

    • LOL
      That's funny!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2019 @ 7:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are conflating traditional fair use analysis with transformativeness.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92. icon
    nasch (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 10:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are conflating traditional fair use analysis with transformativeness.

    "The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that "transformative" uses of copyrighted work can deeply affect the analysis of the first factor."

    The first factor being nature and purpose of the use. What is the "traditional fair use analysis" that you refer to that doesn't take transformativeness into account?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2019 @ 8:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's funny how you're so self-assured that you don't feel a need to actually put forth any argument.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94. icon
    Tanner Andrews (profile), 12 Oct 2019 @ 10:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:; clarification

    If he was acquitted and you kept calling him a murderer in the press or something he could sue you for defamation

    Just to be clear, however, there is no assurance that he would prevail on the merits. If he cannot prove that he did not do that with which he was charged, then in most states he would lose.

    Acquittal is not proof that one did not do it. Conviction, surviving any appeal, can be used as evidence that one is guilty, but it does not work the other way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95. icon
    Tanner Andrews (profile), 12 Oct 2019 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:; further clarification

    Some people such as news organizations or people distributing flyers for commercial/political reasons... yes [OJ Simpson could sue people calling him a murderer]

    Yes, he could.

    He would lose in most states, but he could sue. In some states there may be an anti-SLAPP law which applies and which would allow the person sued to recover judgment for their fees, but that is by no means certain. Neither is collectability.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96. identicon
    A Guy, 12 Oct 2019 @ 11:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:; further clarification

    You are either not a lawyer also, an incompetent lawyer, or a liar.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97. identicon
    A Guy, 12 Oct 2019 @ 11:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:; clarification

    It absolutely does work the other way around. You also may be a foreigner with no double jeopardy protections in your country like Italy. That may be valid advice from an Italian lawyer.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98. identicon
    A Guy, 12 Oct 2019 @ 12:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:; further clarification

    I looked it up and decided my comment was a bit harsh. The fact he is a public figure means he may or may not prevail in court just like the other instances discussed here but he could probably make a prima facie case for defamation before it went to the jury.

    An acquittal of criminal charges is usually all you need as evidence to sue for defamation if someone says you are guilty of a crime.

    Accusing him of being a killer (not that I have any way to know either way) is far safer because it is not a crime that has to be proven in court.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99. icon
    nasch (profile), 12 Oct 2019 @ 12:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:; clarification

    It absolutely does work the other way around.

    "Not guilty" is not the same thing as innocent. A not guilty verdict only demonstrates that the person was not convicted of the crime, not that they didn't commit it. For example, the evidence was not sufficient to meet the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. In a defamation suit, it would be up to the two parties to prove by preponderance of the evidence whether the statement(s) were, among other requirements, false*. The plaintiff couldn't simply point to an acquittal as proof and then it's done, though presumably that would weigh in their favor.

    * assuming the case wasn't dismissed for another reason before it got to that point

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100. identicon
    tp, 14 Oct 2019 @ 2:42am

    Its not transormative...

    Taking a clip from star wars movie and adding a face of some idiot explaning what exactly is happening in the movie scene is not a transformative usage of the video clip. Users still perceive it as a ripoff of the movie and that is not transformative.

    Your video about president Bush seems to have the same issue. Taking someone elses video clip is still illegal copyright infringement, even if you "attach" it with tons of your own content. Mixing and matching of unlicensed content to your own video is still "usage of unlicensed content". The issue is that attaching other content to your pirated videos does not remove the copyright infringements. Only removal of the pirated sections can do that.

    If your video shows face of president Bush without obtaining license from whoever recorded the video, it's still called copyright infringement.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 2:55am

    Re: Re:

    Where did you get the idea that the video must be changed in order for the use to be transformative?

    There's well grounded principle that copyright infringement does not disappear if you include other content to the same pirate collection. It's based on definition of "attach", i.e. merely collecting video clips to same folder or filesystem and making a bigger collection, does not remove the copyright infringements included in the collection. Illegal status of your pirate collection does not disappear if you include more (illegal) content to the collection.

    Making another video clip that contains pirated clips as subpart is very very near this "folder attach" operation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102. icon
    PaulT (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 3:22am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "There's well grounded principle that copyright infringement does not disappear if you include other content to the same pirate collection"

    You've been quiet for a while, but sadly, you haven't acquainted yourself with reality during your absence.

    Here in the world the rest of us inhabit, fair use is a thing, and if something is fair use it is not pirated. Creating a transformative work is therefore not piracy under the terms of what you're addressing, thus everything you said is wrong.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 3:24am

    Re: Re:

    Someone could have taken the DeGeneres video and replaced her face with a derp face throughout

    But given that they never bothered to actually do that operation, how you figure it was transformative? The operation you call as "minimal effort" is still burdensome enough that these clowns never bothered to do it. If the operation "is possible" doesnt mean the clowns actually did that or even contemplated of doing it.

    I could have taken the video and burned the vhs tapes in my backyard, and that would remove illegal status on my pirate collection, but since that haven't yet happened, any amount of "could have taken" does not apply.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 3:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Here in the world the rest of us inhabit, fair use is a thing, and if something is fair use it is not pirated.

    To determine piracy, you just need to identify "one" element of copied or pirated content, and it makes the whole collection of copyrighted works fall into illegal status.

    Once you've got illegal status on the collection, extending it to other content is easy.

    Creating copyrighted works is tricky business, you actually need to use your lawyer-hat more than authors normally would want to use.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105. icon
    Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 3:51am

    Re: Re: "war criminal is a legal term"

    I would pay to see that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106. icon
    Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 3:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Bin Laden was Saudi and apparently his family were friends of the Bushes and spirited out of the country on the day of the attacks. https://www.denverpost.com/2006/09/11/bush-ties-to-bin-laden-haunt-grim-anniversary/

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 4:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You just need to identify "one" element of copied or pirated content, and it makes the whole collection of copyrighted works fall into illegal status.

    Let me still explain the scope externsion idea. It's based on the fact that piracy collections are usually composed of multiple items coming from different authors. One author working alone, can only identify piracy of his own works, and status of the other content in the collection remains unknown, given that the author cannot check whether other authors have granted licenses to the content. Thus the scope extension is needed so that individual authors can claim the pirate collection to be illegal when identifying single element of pirated content in the collection.

    Thus creating copyrighted content, you need to be aware that single element of pirated content can ruin your whole work, even if you spent years finetuning the work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108. identicon
    A Guy, 14 Oct 2019 @ 4:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That isn't even close to what the U.S. Supreme court has said. You are either ill informed or arguing about foreign law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109. identicon
    A Guy, 14 Oct 2019 @ 5:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The "Bush did 9/11" theory is one of the dumber theories people have tried to push on the internet. (Including Bush knew Osama ever.) I don't even have to look at the link to know it's real "fake news". It's right up there with the thermite in the world trade center and the missing plane at the crash site "evidence". You should look at the relationship between the United States and Osama Bin Laden during the Clinton years before you try shoveling that crap.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 5:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That isn't even close to what the U.S. Supreme court has said.

    The supreme court needs to focus on the paperwork that is provided for them. They probably considered completely different question.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111. icon
    PaulT (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 5:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "To determine piracy, you just need to identify "one" element of copied or pirated content"

    No, you apply the full law, which includes a fair use defence to allow something that would otherwise be considered infringing.

    "Creating copyrighted works is tricky business"

    Given that almost everything is automatically assigned a copyrighted status unless otherwise deemed infringing, it's really not. The selling it is the hard part, as your well documented failures should have shown you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112. icon
    PaulT (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 5:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Thus creating copyrighted content, you need to be aware that single element of pirated content can ruin your whole work, even if you spent years finetuning the work."

    Well, since you're completely wrong, I can only say that, thankfully, the real world isn't as idiotic as the one you've invented.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 5:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, you apply the full law, which includes a fair use defence to allow something that would otherwise be considered infringing.

    That only happens after you've been marked criminal and your reputation was ruined in local newspapers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114. identicon
    A Guy, 14 Oct 2019 @ 5:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I did click on the link and read it. Stories like that are the reason Trump supporters can keep a straight face while yelling "fake news" and "reporters are propagandists" to everyone.

    There were 1 or 2 facts that were true but the reporter stretches them to ridiculous lengths without providing other context that provides a more accurate picture of the timeline and circumstances surrounding the events. Some of the claims are just completely false.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 5:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, since you're completely wrong, I can only say that, thankfully, the real world isn't as idiotic as the one you've invented.

    Well, you can check this example, where some company reputation was ruined in the newspapers for plagiarism: (google translate might be needed)
    https://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000000661839.html

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116. icon
    PaulT (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 5:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "That only happens after you've been marked criminal"

    For breaking civil law, and before you've been allowed to use the defences allowed to you by the very law you're supposed to have broken?

    Again, I'm glad reality does not conform to your delusions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117. icon
    nasch (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 6:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Some of the claims are just completely false.

    Which ones?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118. icon
    nasch (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 6:06am

    Re: Re: Re:

    But given that they never bothered to actually do that operation, how you figure it was transformative?

    "Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work."

    That's how.

    https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2019 @ 6:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What I was thinking of when I wrote that was "America's worst day". We have had earthquakes, hurricanes, and military battles with larger death tolls than sept 11.

    It was a bad one, though the author didn't even google whether there were objectively worse days in US history.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 6:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character,

    This somehow also applies even if the clowns did nothing to further this purpose or character?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121. identicon
    A Guy, 14 Oct 2019 @ 6:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How is changing the purpose and character from what it was initially to slandering Ellen and Bush not different?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122. icon
    PaulT (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 6:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "there were objectively worse days in US history"

    The trick is, that's not something that can be objectively stated.You seem to be picking purely "number of casualties", but if the author is thinking in more subjective terms you can't really compare facts.

    Similarly, you can't reject the claim as "completely false", because the subjective impact on the author is very much true, even if you personally do not share it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 7:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How is changing the purpose and character from what it was initially to slandering Ellen and Bush not different?

    Copying only selected part of a work is still considered copyright infringement, even though the selection process has some innovative elements recarding which clips were chosen and what content was discarded. But the amount of original content in such content selections is not high enough to qualify for separate copyright. Same happens with the purpose and character determination, a mere content selection or restricting the scope or size of the content copied does not transform the purpose and character, given that it's only an intersection of the behaviour that was already included in the original work.

    As described other place in this thread, the extension of the scope using other author's works is not considered good enough for transformation either. So both set intersection, and scope extension has been ruled out from the consideration. What remains is actually original work where slowly exploring the problem space results in entering completely new areas which wasn't available in any of the base products the video relies on.

    Of course news publishers might have some deadlines to meet, given that they need to output tons of news items in very short amount of time, so such publishers are not required to invent the news themselves, but instead they should examine the world around them and find newsworthy items to publish. But it shouldnt be just republishing what other news agencies have found out, but also do their own research on newsworthy phenomenons in the world, usually the reporters need to have their own camera equipment so that they can get the best view of the president for their publication. They also need to apply for permissions to meet the president, and that permission is very easy to lose, given that the president can only meet the most important publications that are available in the world. And once they have received newsworthy view of president's hair, they can sell it to other publications according to whatever rules president's office has placed for the presidential clips. But anyway, permission is always (somehow) required for these operations.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124. icon
    nasch (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 8:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're (intentionally?) ignoring the fact that this was not just an excerpt from the video, but had commentary added to it. This is what changed the nature and purpose of the work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 8:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're (intentionally?) ignoring the fact that this was not just an excerpt from the video, but had commentary added to it.

    Sure, but placing some idiot talking about a movie clip does not remove the copyright infringement. Adding any (even original) content to a copyight infringing work does not remove the infringement.

    All of youtube thinks that if they comment or critisize existing work, they don't need to follow copyright's limitations at all. This seems to be false, given that fair use analysis only happens after both parties have spent millions in lawyers fees.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126. icon
    PaulT (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 8:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Sure, but placing some idiot talking about a movie clip does not remove the copyright infringement."

    Except, the law literally states that it does do that. Fair use provisions say that commentary/review makes it fair use.

    "This seems to be false, given that fair use analysis only happens after both parties have spent millions in lawyers fees"

    I repeat, I'm glad I live in the real world and not the nightmare in your head.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 8:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    repeat, I'm glad I live in the real world and not the nightmare in your head.

    This millions number comes from oracle vs google java api copyright fight, their literally spent millions before courts even considered their fair use arguments.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128. icon
    PaulT (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 8:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "This millions number comes from oracle vs google java api copyright fight"

    Ah, so a completely different and vastly more complicated case than the one we're actually talking about?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 9:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ah, so a completely different and vastly more complicated case than the one we're actually talking about?

    Both google and oracle are experts at complicated (software) logic. If they cannot figure out a way to avoid millions in lawyers fees, then noone can.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 9:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don’t think Wendy was saying Bush in any way caused the 9/11 attacks, nor do I think she was saying that George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden knew each other personally. She was saying their families were old friends.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 9:30am

    Re: Re:

    There are stupid enough stories to be somewhat similar to Trump asking for assistance in that way but I don't even care to read the longer descriptions of the allegations of those long ago events or even look for them again.

    Then we have no obligation to take what you say to be in any way factually accurate.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 9:31am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I agree, and I second your motion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Actually, the solution is simple, in theory.

    All that was needed was for Oracle to not be dirty, lying thieves.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134. icon
    nasch (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 10:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm curious why you keep insisting on misunderstanding fair use. It's been explained to you repeatedly, and yet you keep mischaracterizing it. Do you have a job that involves reliance on enforcement of copyrights, or work that is threatened by people making fair use of copyrighted materials? I don't think you're just too dumb to get it, so I'm trying to think of a motivation. Perhaps you just cannot stand to admit you were wrong.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 10:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    For breaking civil law, and before you've been allowed to use the defences allowed to you by the very law you're supposed to have broken?

    Yes, the logic goes as follows:
    1) newspaper gets a hint that a company breaks copyright law
    2) newspaper checks the information by comparing the products in question
    3) the company gets a chance to comment on the allegations
    4) newspapers have a deadline to meet, so publish date on the information has been set as the next monday
    5) your company reputation is ruined

    There's no legal process or proper defences in this process. A qualified judge is not involved until alot later....

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Do you have a job that involves reliance on enforcement of copyrights

    I'm author of some software (that never generated any money even after years of work)

    or work that is threatened by people making fair use of copyrighted materials? I

    Competitors that use illegal or dubious practises to get their product more popular than what ordinary authors can do are a threat to the author's (future) income. For example, if wikipedia decides to publish millions of documents, its a clear competitor which eats our popularity. When we find out that they didn't create the content themselves, but instead auto-licensed the content, it means that they're doing something evil that is not available to us. Same issue is with youtube, they didn't create the content that made them popular.

    so I'm trying to think of a motivation.

    Europe doesn't have fair use available in the same way as US have. We actually need to follow copyright to the letter, even if it feels draconian.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137. identicon
    A Guy, 14 Oct 2019 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Idc if you believe me or not I'm not looking for ancient elementary school text books to find any of it again.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138. icon
    nasch (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Competitors that use illegal or dubious practises to get their product more popular than what ordinary authors can do are a threat to the author's (future) income.

    Except we're talking about things that are fair use. Someone copying your work without adding anything to it, and using it in the same way you use it is not going to be fair use. So you are once again ignoring how fair use works.

    Europe doesn't have fair use available in the same way as US have.

    Perhaps you have just been assuming you know more about US fair use than you actually do. Maybe learn more about it before making yourself look uninformed. Europe does have some form of fair dealing exceptions, but I don't really know how it works.

    We actually need to follow copyright to the letter, even if it feels draconian.

    So do people in the US. Fair use is not some extralegal action that lets people get away with crimes. It is part of the law, and someone relying on a fair use exception to copyright protection is obeying the law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Except we're talking about things that are fair use.

    Fair use has a reputation of being "ignore copyright" kind of law. Everyone who seems to use it, had some kind of grudge against the rules that copyright is enforcing. They don't bother to ask for permission, but instead they want to use the work without compensation. If they happen to get a license to the product, they fail to follow the limitations that the license places on any lilcensees. So it's more "ignore copyright" than actually trying to follow the law as originally intended.

    When is the last time you read the license and started following all the rules that it enforces? If copyright's rules sound draconian to you, why would the more burdensome license's rules be any better?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140. identicon
    A Guy, 14 Oct 2019 @ 12:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This is actually an easy one.

    Fair use comes directly from supreme court precedents that limit copyright to comply with free speech. If you don't like free speech get out.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  141. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 12:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Fair use comes directly from supreme court precedents that limit copyright to comply with free speech.

    If free speech is the actual issue, why would all the people who rely on fair use exceptions go there to get "ignore copyright"? They don't seem to be concerned about their speech being somehow suppressed, but instead they simply don't want to follow (any) draconian rules since they feel rule following is somehow pressuring them to do stuff that they don't want to do.

    What exactly is the free speech issue this "ignore copyright" is solving?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  142. identicon
    A Guy, 14 Oct 2019 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "If you don't like free speech get out" really is the rest of that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  143. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2019 @ 1:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, unless one side is intent on finding a pretext to get their hands of some of the other sides money, and apply you type of infringement analysis. Google did not copy any code, but the minimum, that is the APIs, to keep to the Java Standards.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  144. icon
    nasch (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 2:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Fair use has a reputation of being "ignore copyright" kind of law. Everyone who seems to use it, had some kind of grudge against the rules that copyright is enforcing.

    This sounds like a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions that have no grounding in reality and reflect - in my opinion - a near total ignorance of what fair use is and what it's used for. Which is exactly what I would expect from you at this point.

    They don't bother to ask for permission, but instead they want to use the work without compensation.

    There is no need to ask permission or provide compensation when making fair use of a work.

    If they happen to get a license to the product

    Totally different topic, since licensing and fair use are more or less mutually exclusive.

    When is the last time you read the license and started following all the rules that it enforces?

    All the time - every time I use a software library I find on the internet. What is your point?

    If copyright's rules sound draconian to you, why would the more burdensome license's rules be any better?

    How is that relevant to a discussion about fair use?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  145. icon
    nasch (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 2:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What exactly is the free speech issue this "ignore copyright" is solving?

    Assuming by "ignore copyright" you mean fair use, and that's an honest question, and you are actually willing to read with an open mind and learn:

    "Copyright, which is also grounded in the Constitution, gives the rightholder an exclusive legal right over his work, allowing him to restrict access to it, prevent others from using or reproducing it. If this were all there was to copyright law, a rightholder could certainly use his exclusive rights to block criticism and discussion, stifling free speech. Without proper safeguards, copyright law could conflict with the right to freedom of speech by giving the rightholder censorship rights."

    https://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/the-first-amendment-and-copyright-law-cant-we-all-just -get-along/

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  146. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2019 @ 3:38pm

    Predictably, the EFF has criticized what it considers the ease by which DMCA takedowns may be filed, noting that a complainant should take fair use into consideration before issuing a takedown notice.

    Importantly, and something largely lost here, it offers no opinion on whether or not the use of the video was a fair use. The author of the article here tosses around the term “transformative” as if its applicability here is beyond any dispute. Perhaps the author would be proven correct after a trial on the merits, but in this instance predicting the ultimate outcome is quite difficult, with strong arguments supporti

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  147. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2019 @ 3:49pm

    Re:

    Last sentence mysteriously truncated. Should read “...supporting pro and con positions.”

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  148. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2019 @ 8:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    A qualified judge is not involved until alot later....

    Thanks for confirming that oftentimes, copyright law is enforced by people you deem unqualified.

    Still waiting for your Minecraft mansion? In the States, those are generally only given out after a period of getting on your knees and holding your breath.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  149. icon
    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 9:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Still waiting for your Minecraft mansion?

    Sad part about the mansion is that everyone involved had their chance to help me with the mansion plans. A digital copy of mansion plans was only thing required. and we didn't even get that, much less anyone qualified for building a working mansion.

    If youtube and wikipedia can get millions of people helping with their future plans, howcome my poor web site gets noone? Given that youtube or wikipedia already have their plans in good shape, can't they afford to borrow few of their millions of plan developers for my mansion's plans? And I didn't even need to talk about children playing minecraft...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  150. icon
    PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 12:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Fair use has a reputation of being "ignore copyright" kind of law"

    No, it's literally part of copyright law. You only ignore copyright law if you refuse to acknowledge the part of the law that allows for fair use.

    "They don't bother to ask for permission"

    The entire point of fair use is that there are situations where you shouldn't need to ask for permission. For example, if I'm reviewing your movie, it would potentially damage the objectiveness of the review if I had to ask your permission to use footage to illustrate what I'm saying (because you'd probably refuse if I wasn't giving a glowing review).

    Like it or not, there are situations where fair use applies and copyright does not. That's part of the deal you make with the public when you accept the rest of the copyright agreement the public are making with you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  151. icon
    PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 12:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "What exactly is the free speech issue this "ignore copyright" is solving?"

    Because idiots like you who think it should take million dollar lawsuits to get permission to do things would happily use copyright as a broad censorship tool to shut down areas of free speech. By allowing certain exceptions to your copyright control, the public is allowed access to information and culture that you'd otherwise destroy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  152. icon
    PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 12:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I'm author of some software (that never generated any money even after years of work)"

    Because you're a horrifically bad salesman. Even after linking to your website, showing us the shitty videos that played on buses and random rambling here in many threads, nobody here even knows what your software is meant to do. Why would anyone give you money for software whose use is not known?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  153. icon
    PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 12:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "If they cannot figure out a way to avoid millions in lawyers fees, then noone can."

    Congratulations! You've just agreed with everybody here that copyright law is a complete mess and in desperate need of reform.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  154. icon
    PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 1:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "some company reputation was ruined in the newspapers for plagiarism"

    So, you both a) don't understand the many differences between plagiarism and copyright infringement, and b) don't understand the difference between Finnish copyright law and the US copyright law everybody else is talking about.

    Would it kill you to actually understand subjects before spewing nonsense about them?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  155. icon
    PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 1:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "howcome my poor web site gets noone?"

    Because it's crap, and nobody understand what the hell it's trying to do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  156. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2019 @ 2:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm author of some software (that never generated any money even after years of work)

    And Linus has given his work away, and has got his mansion, and trips around the world for his diving holidays.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  157. icon
    tp (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 5:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Congratulations! You've just agreed with everybody here that copyright law is a complete mess and in desperate need of reform.

    Obviusly if you train people to become lawyers, there needs to be enough cases available in the legal market that most of the professional lawyers can get their living expenses covered from the lawyers fees. If those fees are growing large, it means lawyers expertise is actually needed badly and lawyers need to rise prices to compensate the time spent.

    The need for lawyers to get a living has nothing to do with copyright law being a mess. I'm sure professional lawyers have no trouble navigating the subtleties involved in the area.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  158. icon
    tp (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 6:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Because it's crap, and nobody understand what the hell it's trying to do.

    Sadly you missed the actual message. When is youtube and wikipedia going to implement the plan that was requested from them? They keep publishing tons of digital content, but they haven't yet understood that they are responsible for making real-world versions of all the digital plans of everything that they publish. The whole publish operation in copyright law was designed to let the world know beforehand what new technologies are being developed. Now that youtube publishd millions of digital video files, they have huge amount of problems implementing their own promises. Whoever does "publish" operation is responsible of ensuring that all the plans gets implemented in real world. I'm predicting that youtube have huge trouble with ensuring that their plans gets implemented in real world.

    Proper solution for them would be to stop promising real-world implementations and let other people (like my web page) do the promises. They should instead focus on actually ensuring that their old promises gets implemented in real world.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  159. icon
    PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 6:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Strange, for a guy who's just been whining about not getting the house and money he dreamed of, you do outright support people like you having to pay all their income to lawyers.

    "The need for lawyers to get a living "

    Is the same need as anyone else in any other industry. Including all the technical and creative industries you're supporting them killing for profit via unworkable copyright rules.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  160. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2019 @ 6:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    When laws get to the state that a lawyer is needed to interpret it for everyday use, the law is too complicated for its intended use.

    Also, learning a skill, or making something, is not a guarantee of employment or income, as the skill or product may not meet any need in society.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  161. icon
    PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 6:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "they haven't yet understood that they are responsible for making real-world versions of all the digital plans of everything that they publish"

    Probably because literally nobody else but you thinks that they're responsible for that.

    "Proper solution for them would be to stop promising real-world implementations"

    When did they promise this? You are not making any sense.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  162. icon
    tp (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 7:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    When did they promise this?

    Every time they publish anything on their web page.

    Copyright infringement limitations was designed to solve exactly this problem. People tended to promise the moon, but when government asked whether the plan was done, there was big disappointments, because the plan had been made with copyright-infringement and that area is known to be impossile to implement in real world.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  163. icon
    tp (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 7:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    a lawyer is needed to interpret it for everyday use

    fair use is not intended for everyday use. It only applies once you've been declared criminal, and people are not supposed to be criminals every day use cases.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  164. icon
    PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 7:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Every time they publish anything on their web page."

    According to whom? Has anything other than your deranged mind said anything of the sort? If so, link to the evidence, because this is news to pretty much anyone else on the internet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  165. icon
    PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 7:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "It only applies once you've been declared criminal"

    Again, you not only don't understand the difference between civil and criminal law, you also don't understand due process. You're saying that even though the law contains an exception that states that you are not breaking the law under certain parameters, the exception cannot be applied until after you've been convicted of breaking it. That makes zero sense to anybody.

    "people are not supposed to be criminals every day use cases."

    Yes, so why do you keep arguing that the law should be applied in such a way that people are criminals for what they do every day?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  166. icon
    tp (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 7:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    the exception cannot be applied until after you've been convicted of breaking it.

    There's two separate things:
    1) the main rule
    2) the exceptions to the rule

    After you break the main rule, you can be declared criminal, and then your only defenses are the exceptions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  167. icon
    tp (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 7:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    because this is news to pretty much anyone else on the internet.

    Well, you simply didn't create enough copyrighted works if you don't yet have this information. You receive this information once you starrt to have your plans ready and published.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  168. icon
    PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 8:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "After you break the main rule, you can be declared criminal"

    Wrong. You can usually be found guilty of a civil, not criminal, offence. You getting the very basics of the law wrong isn't helping your case in the slightest.

    "and then your only defenses are the exceptions."

    Yes, the point of the exceptions is for people not to be breaking the law under certain conditions. You have a problem with this for some reason. You'd rather people like youself have to waste millions on lawyers based on accusations.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  169. icon
    PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 8:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So, you're making it up. What a weird fantasy land you've created for yourself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  170. icon
    nasch (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 8:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As long as you keep saying "declared criminal" it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. That isn't how this works. If you are sued, you can present a fair use defense. And I believe, though IANAL, if you are not sued you can request a declaratory judgment that your use is fair use.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  171. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 1:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Actually, under most circumstances, even if you infringe on someone’s copyright and you don’t fall under any of the exceptions (like fair use), you still aren’t a criminal because, under most circumstances, copyright infringement is a civil offense, not a criminal one.

    Also, most of the time, when you post a link to a site or embed a video or picture, you’re often relying on fair use to say you aren’t infringing on someone’s copyright. Same goes for recording a live broadcast for later viewing, parodies, quotes, saving a copy of an image for private use, making backup copies, etc. There are so many ways that average people take advantage of fair use in everyday life.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  172. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 1:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    We’re talking about U.S. copyright laws and the “fair use” exception within those laws. Citing a case that happened in Finland will get you nowhere, as that involves Finnish copyright laws, which is not what we’re discussing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  173. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 1:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Please explain exactly what Google and Wikipedia have promised, exactly when and where they promised it, evidence that they failed to live up to their promises, what it has to do with copyright, and exactly what your web page does to solve these “problems”.

    Also, explain, exactly what plan Google and Wikipedia were requested to implement, and who requested such a plan.

    Finally, explain exactly why Google or Wikipedia are “responsible for making real-world versions of all the digital plans of everything that they publish,” along with what is meant by “real-world versions” and “digital plans”. For the record, nothing in copyright law requires that anything has to exist in a physical medium to be copyrighted. It does have to be “fixed” in some sort of medium, and if you want to sue over it, you need to submit it for copyright registration, but last I checked, neither Google nor Wikipedia have had any problems with that.

    Also, you’re very confused about the purpose of “the publishing operation in copyright law,” which was not to “let the world know beforehand what new technologies are being developed.” That’s what patent law is for. Copyright didn’t originally cover anything about developing technologies until the late 70s at the earliest, largely because nothing copyrightable was involved in developing new technologies. It was meant to protect the arts, not science and technology.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  174. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 1:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are conflating traditional fair use analysis with transformativeness.

    From one of nasch’s quotes (emphasis and omission are mine):

    “In White v. West Publishing, the district court ruled that […] such searchable use of court-filed documents was transformative (and therefore excusable as a fair use).”

    That is, “transformative” is directly related to “fair use”, and one of the quotes given to you expressly used both terms in the same sentence. Furthermore, even though the other quotes don’t use both terms, they were all rulings about “fair use” that found the underlying use to be “transformative”, which you’d know if you looked up the original court rulings the quotes refer to.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  175. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 1:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    1) Do you have a citation in any U.S. Federal Court (District Court, Court of Appeals, or Supreme Court) that has used such a “scope extension” doctrine in a copyright case that hasn’t been overruled by a higher court?

    2) That does not refute the assertion that, if something is considered to be transformative and therefore fair use, it is not piracy or copyright infringement. Once something is determined to be fair use, no further analysis is necessary to determine if something is fair use.

    3) You’re talking about a collection of pirated works, which is presumably meant to convey the same message and serve the same market as the originals. That’s not the same as a case where the copied works are used in a manner and with a purpose distinct from the originals’. It’s true that the former is probably not transformative or fair use, but the latter is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  176. icon
    tp (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 10:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Do you have a citation in any U.S. Federal Court (District Court, Court of Appeals, or Supreme Court) that has used such a “scope extension” doctrine in a copyright case

    I found a relevant paperwork in this address:
    https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1664&context=btlj
    It explicitly says the following: "If an author creates a new work, borrowing only minor aspects from existing works, the result qualifies as an independently created new work, not a derivative work."

    I.e. the scope extension is part of the separation between "independently created new work" and "a derived work". Note that creating a derived work usually requires a permission from copyright owner, but creating independently created new work does not require a permission. So scope extension is relevant if you want to avoid getting a permission for your activity from other authors.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  177. icon
    tp (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 11:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    exactly what your web page does to solve these “problems”.

    I only promise small amount of real-world implementations with my copyrighted works. Youtube and wikipedia are both promising millions of individual documents, so it's no wonder they have problems transferring their promises to the real world.

    The small amount is the keyword. Copyright assumes that single author can only publish small amount of material to the world, given that there is only 24 hours available in each day. So it's simply not possible to create that large amount of copyrighted works, if you fairly compensate your dependencies and create the rest of the material yourself.

    If some author has millions of pieces of published documents in their collection, it's a clear sign that they're not compensating authors to the full market rates.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  178. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 12:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Citing a case that happened in Finland will get you nowhere"

    Even if it did, he's already stated that the case was related to plagiarism, and while that can be related to copyright infringement they are completely different issues.

    If he'd have posted a picture of his breakfast it would have had as much relevance to the discussion as the case he cited.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  179. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 12:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Note that creating a derived work usually requires a permission from copyright owner"

    ...unless it falls under fair use protections in which case no such permission is required.

    Strange how you're missing the part that tells you that you're wrong about everything you're claiming..

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  180. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 12:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Youtube and wikipedia are both promising millions of individual documents"

    No, they're promising a platform on which other people can publish, and have delivered that in spades.

    "Copyright assumes that single author can only publish small amount of material to the world"

    ...and each single author does. The fact that you can't understand the difference between author and publisher, or physical and digital distribution is not the fault of the services that provide platforms for authors to publish with.

    "If some author has millions of pieces of published documents in their collection, it's a clear sign that they're not compensating authors to the full market rates."

    The market decides the rates. Some rates are lower than they would be for physical goods, because the market understand renting vs. buying, and the far lower overheads that come with digital goods. It's strange how you keep bringing up Wikipedia in this discussion, since it's a non-profit organisation that mostly takes works on a volunteer basis with no expectation of payment, but that fits with your lack of understanding of most things.

    I'm sorry that the market has told you that the correct price for your work is $0 despite you expecting more, but it's not the fault of the rest of us that you can't deal with the real world.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  181. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 1:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Strange how you're missing the part that tells you

    maybe you can find a quote from the relevant paperwork which proves your point?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  182. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 1:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's strange how you keep bringing up Wikipedia in this discussion,

    All vendors that are able to publish millions of copyrighted products are fitting the slot I reserved for "example author names". They all do something evil which ordinary authors who choose not to do copyright infringements cannot handle properly. Both copyright infringement and whatever these vendors are doing have one thing in common: they can handle large amount of other people's material without providing proper compensation for the authors.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  183. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 1:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    m sorry that the market has told you that the correct price for your work is $0 despite you expecting more

    if that happens, authors need to examine what free market failure has caused the problem. In this case, our analysis suggests that the market failure is related to new technologies that allow unlimited copying of copyrighted works in the marketplace. This is exactly the same technology that pirates are using to do cloning of copyrighted works. When this piracy technology got more popular, some market vendors tried to find uses for the technology which look legimate even though it has the same unwanted behaviour that made the piracy tech illegal.

    The actual problem that causes the market failure and price of copyrighted works to become $0 or even negative, is caused by flood of copyrighted works in the marketplace when unlimited copying is available.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  184. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 1:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "maybe you can find a quote from the relevant paperwork which proves your point?"

    The entire concept of fair use?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

    Fair use is a doctrine in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder.

    Would it kill you to at least read up on the basics of the concepts you're so valiantly fighting against?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  185. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 1:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "They all do something evil"

    So, you think that accepting donations from volunteers is "evil"?

    "they can handle large amount of other people's material without providing proper compensation for the authors."

    Yet, in all the examples you are using, the people providing the work have been compensated according to the rates they agreed before providing the work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  186. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 1:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "if that happens, authors need to examine what free market failure has caused the problem."

    In your case, it's because the market has decided your work is worthless and/or you suck at selling it.

    "The actual problem that causes the market failure and price of copyrighted works to become $0 or even negative, is caused by flood of copyrighted works in the marketplace when unlimited copying is available."

    No, it's because there's lots of competition, and people are paying for work that;'s worth more than the shit you have shovelled. You are being paid what you are worth.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  187. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 2:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    it's because the market has decided your work is worthless and/or you suck at selling it.

    The story from pirates is always "piracy helps attracting audience to the material" whenever they flood the market with their illegal wares. But they never consider that their flood is causing people's work to become worthless.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  188. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 2:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The story from pirates is always "piracy helps attracting audience to the material" whenever they flood the market with their illegal wares"

    I thought you were talking about perfectly legal content, such as that hosted by YouTube and Wikipedia. Now, you're whining about piracy?

    This has nothing to do with piracy. Your software has no known purpose, you're terrible at advertising it and your website sucks. Therefore, people are spending their money on things that are worth something. End of story, no piracy involved. The software might be essential in your mind, but you have to convince other people of that before they will pay for it.

    Again, I'm sorry that you wasted time creating a product that nobody wants, and you're so bad at selling it that you haven't convinced people that there's a need. But, the fact is that not everybody makes money from a creative endeavour, and never have. Most businesses fail in the first year, many people spend years without a single sale. Van Gogh only sold one painting during his lifetime, and you sir are no Van Gogh.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  189. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 2:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I thought you were talking about perfectly legal content, such as that hosted by YouTube and Wikipedia.

    I already explained that piracy and publishers who can publish millions of copyrighted works have some commonality. When they're in the same equivalence class (i.e. they didn't give proper compensation to authors), switching between them and pirates is allowed operation. The story doesnt change if I sometimes use pirates and sometimes wikipedia.

    This has nothing to do with piracy.

    Well, in legal circles we would call it "unfair competition". While I cannot claim copyright infringement of my own work (because pirates chose someone elses work), I could claim "unfair competition" when they don't give proper compensation to authors and thus make the market impossible for anyone who need actually get money from the market.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  190. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2019 @ 2:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The actual problem that causes the market failure and price of copyrighted works to become $0 or even negative, is caused by flood of copyrighted works in the marketplace when unlimited copying is available.

    How do you reduce that flood of new works, which is the result of publishing platforms making the scale of human creativity visible, other than telling creators to stop creating and publishing works. Most of them will not make any money, either because of the creators choice, or because they do not attract an audience, but the latter only differs from prior periods of history in that it is the public ignoring the work, rather than publishers ignoring the work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  191. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 2:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I already explained"

    Yes, you've spouted a lot of nonsense. That doesn't make it true, nor is it responsible for your inability to sell your product.

    "(i.e. they didn't give proper compensation to authors)"

    Once again, Wikipedia is giving the compensation that authors agreed to when they volunteered their work. The fact that you would like a different deal does not change the fact that Wikipedia authors are happy with their deal.

    "Well, in legal circles we would call it "unfair competition""

    You've demonstrated that you haven't got the first clue what the law actually says.

    "While I cannot claim copyright infringement of my own work (because pirates chose someone elses work)"

    Exactly. Your work is so worthless they're not even bothering to try and take it for free. Nobody wants your product, because you've failed to create a market for it. That's not the fault of people who are more successful than you.

    Again, I feel for you and I'm sorry that you're such an abject failure. But, to use an analogy, the fact that people are using a soup kitchen or cooking at home instead of using your restaurant does not mean they're stealing from you. Hell, you even seem to think you deserve money because someone chose a different restaurant - that's not how it works.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  192. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 2:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How do you reduce that flood of new works, which is the result of publishing platforms making the scale of human creativity visible, other than telling creators to stop creating and publishing works.

    Your work being visible in some publishing platform needs to correspond (again) that the author was paid for the time he spent creating the work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  193. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 3:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Exactly. Your work is so worthless they're not even bothering to try and take it for free.

    I added copyright protection to the work and pirates have not been able to crack it yet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  194. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 3:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Your work being visible in some publishing platform needs to correspond (again) that the author was paid for the time he spent creating the work."

    Only in your head. In the real world this rarely happens.

    If you want to be paid hourly, go get a job that pays hourly. Otherwise, you're compensated for what people buy, not what you wish they bought. The fact that so many people are so much more successful than you does not change this reality.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  195. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 3:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I added copyright protection to the work and pirates have not been able to crack it yet.'

    You also haven't been able to convince any non-pirate to buy it. That's not the fault of people providing legal platforms for other authors to publish their works, no matter how much you whine about it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  196. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 3:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You also haven't been able to convince any non-pirate to buy it.

    That's not true. I have one sale in itch.io, worth a whopping $5.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  197. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 3:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    OK, I stand corrected. You failed to convince more than one person to buy it.

    But, even this admission raises so many more questions. Like, why are you attacking sites like Wikipedia and YouTube when they're not even in the same market as your product, why did you choose to use a site that offers a great number of free products to sell it if you're so opposed to free content, what you've done to differentiate yourself from the hundreds of games uploaded there every day, and so on.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  198. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 3:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If you want to be paid hourly, go get a job that pays hourly.

    the companies have the same problem, they cannot compete against free.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  199. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 3:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    why are you attacking sites like Wikipedia and YouTube when they're not even in the same market as your product,

    they're both web pages like my product and they have millions of items in their catalog. I have one product. How should i get my product visible from flood of millions of (unpaid&free) products?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  200. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2019 @ 3:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In other words, your efforts are wasted unless a publisher accepts your work for publication. What makes you think that your work would be accepted for publication? Fail to gain a publisher and you would not even have one user.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  201. identicon
    A Guy, 16 Oct 2019 @ 3:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, I'll give you this much, you don't hate free speech. You love inane long-winded speech, especially when you don't have anything to say.

    :slow clap: good job

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  202. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 4:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "the companies have the same problem, they cannot compete against free."

    Apart from the fact that they do. I'd explain why, but there's over a decade worth of posts and evidence on this very site. Go educate yourself. Using free software nonetheless.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  203. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 4:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "they're both web pages like my product"

    The product you're selling is not a website. Really, you're so bad at this you don't understand what the product you're selling is yourself?

    "How should i get my product visible from flood of millions of (unpaid&free) products?"

    Marketing, advertising, SEO, getting someone capable of telling people what your product is to help you out, etc... Techdirt is also just one website out of millions, yet here you are...

    Maybe instead of whining about how putting incomprehensible ads on local buses isn't getting you YouTube money, you should try and understand how the real world operates.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  204. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 4:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    you don't understand what the product you're selling is yourself?

    thats not going to work, people simply wont pay for my face, even if i attached it to pirated copy of star wars.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  205. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 5:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "people simply wont pay for my face"

    It's probably worth more than the shoddy website you constructed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  206. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2019 @ 5:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Some companies not only compete against free, but actively support free, like Red Hat which actively supports Fedora and Centos, the Latter being a clone of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  207. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 5:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's probably worth more than the shoddy website you constructed.

    I should also sell my fingerprints, passport, shoe size, x-ray images, my math books, functional programming tutorials, inventions, patents, copyright licenses, the finnish alphabet, local bakery, 3d printer, holographic display, my computer, my brother's car or neighbour's cat?

    is there nothing you consider outside of your reach?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  208. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 5:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'd settle for you creating and selling a product that people actually want, rather than demanding other people be shut down for your failure.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  209. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 5:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'd settle for you creating and selling a product that people actually want

    can you provide a complete list of what these magical products are?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  210. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 6:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I love the fact that you think that "sell what people want to buy" is some kind of magical incantation. But, since you're already on the site, why not take a look at your successful competition?

    https://itch.io/games/top-sellers

    Failing that, perhaps your time here whining about people volunteering for Wikipedia would be better spent researching your potential customers?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  211. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 6:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    take a look at your successful competition?

    so these are the people who activated spam-bots on twitter and clicked adverticement banners in dacebook to get their stats up?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  212. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 6:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Unlikely. That's part of your problem - you can't conceive that anyone could be more successful than you by honest means, even though it's been explained to you exactly why you failed. If number of click would drive sales up you should be successful based purely on the click you've got from these threads, yet despite linking to it here constantly nobody on Techdirt knows what the product you've tried to sell does.

    You need less videos on local buses, more research on how to explain what the hell your product does to people who might be interested.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  213. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 6:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That's part of your problem - you can't conceive that anyone could be more successful

    well, i have 13 products available in itch.io. (12 games, 1 tool). It seems that you cannot find your way to the top-sellers list by creating games. The analyrics on their web page inicates that people are not even looking at the products, even less downloading, and almost noone buying them. So whoever is in top-sellers list is doing something evil like spamming the links on twitter...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  214. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2019 @ 7:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You have run into the problem that anybody creative has always had, how do you escape from obscurity and attract an audience. That requires marketing, not advertising, but rather finding and promoting a a likely audience, and listening to their feedback. Just publishing works and sitting back waiting for the money to roll in has never worked, as even publishers expect creators to work at marketing following their advice. Unfortunately, most creative efforts are doomed to languish in obscurity, as the creators never connect with those who would appreciate the works.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  215. icon
    PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 7:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "It seems that you cannot find your way to the top-sellers list by creating games"

    No, you have to market and sell them as well.

    "The analyrics on their web page inicates that people are not even looking at the products"

    Yep, that's what happens when you upload a game to a site that gets hundreds of new listings a day and do nothing to promote it. Here's a quick hint for the future when you get off your arse and actually promote them - most people viewing the page won't buy it afterwards. That's what happens when you're in a competitive market.

    "So whoever is in top-sellers list is doing something evil like spamming the links on twitter"

    Or doing something not evil like marketing it the way non-lazy, non-delusional people do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  216. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 8:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I’m sorry, but I fail to see how that case proves that scope extension is a thing in U.S. courts. In fact, you’re “i.e.” bit doesn’t actually follow from the quote you gave.

    Maybe if you gave a better explanation of what “scope extension” actually is, and not just the problem it’s supposed to fix, I’d understand better.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  217. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 2:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I only promise small amount of real-world implementations with my copyrighted works.

    See, here’s where a couple of major problems I have with you come up. First, you often speak using very broad or vague language, which doesn’t work well when dealing with copyright law and all its nuances. You speak of your “copyrighted works”, but that could be anything from a video recording, a photo, a book, an audio recording, a script, a painting, a sculpture, a piece of software, a website, a description of the choreography for a dance, a piece of music, etc. This leads to the second problem: using words in ways that don’t appear to make sense in context or seemingly incorrectly. Unless we’re talking about patents (which aren’t copyrighted) or a piece of software, we generally don’t talk about implementing a copyrighted work, so all of your talk about “real-world implementations” of copyrighted works doesn’t really make much sense. We have to guess what you mean by that, which isn’t good for your argument. From what I can gather, you seem to be talking about making physical copies, especially based on the next sentence, but the problem is that I don’t know for sure, which makes it harder to determine your argument.

    Youtube and wikipedia are both promising millions of individual documents,

    I also asked you to tell me when and where they promise this. AFAICT, neither website has promised “millions of individual documents,” so unless and until you can give me precise proof that they’ve actually made these promises, I have no reason to believe that they have.

    Again, there is no part of copyright law that requires all copyrighted works to exist in a physical medium, in part or in whole, except possibly if and when you try to register a copyright in that work. They do have to be in a “fixed medium”, but a textual web page or a recorded video that can be accessed through the internet will generally suffice for that requirement.

    Copyright assumes that single author can only publish small amount of material to the world, given that there is only 24 hours available in each day. So it's simply not possible to create that large amount of copyrighted works, if you fairly compensate your dependencies and create the rest of the material yourself.

    And this has what to do with publishers like YouTube and Wikipedia? They aren’t authors at all, so that first assumption simply doesn’t apply. In particular, YouTube doesn’t really create much in the way of copyrightable material.

    If some author has millions of pieces of published documents in their collection, it's a clear sign that they're not compensating authors to the full market rates.

    I think I’m beginning to understand bits and pieces of the problem here.

    1) The Wikimedia Foundation—which is the organization that runs Wikipedia and its sister sites—is a nonprofit organization that relies on the work of volunteers. The “authors” are not paid for their work at all, nor do they expect to be paid. That’s what it means to be a volunteer. There are people who get paid, but they work for the organization directly with things like coding or legal work. And again, the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t make any profit off of its services.

    2) You seem to be conflating authors and publishers. This makes your arguments harder to understand. After all, a publisher can easily publish millions of copyrighted works (also, you failed to include a time frame, and publishers can exist far longer than authors), often at the “full market rates”, which is not the same as what you might consider to be “fair rates”.

    You also seem to be confusing your opinion of fairness, copyright law, and laws against unfair competition. To be clear: copyright and unfair competition are two completely different and unrelated areas of law that govern completely different and largely unrelated things. Additionally, “unfair competition” is not defined based on your subjective opinion of what is considered fair. If you’re not in competition with YouTube or Wikipedia (and you don’t seem to claim to be), and you aren’t alleging that they’re working in concert to deflate market rates (which also doesn’t seem to be the case), then I don’t see how you would have standing to claim that they’re violating laws against unfair competition.

    As I mentioned before, you seem to have a loose grasp of the language used to discuss these topics based on how you use terms like “authors”, “keyword”, “implementations”, “full market value”, “copyrighted works”, “copyright”, “criminal”, “scope extension”, “infringement”, “real-world”, etc. You also have a loose grasp of the law based on how you seem to confuse copyright, patent, and unfair competition laws and badly misunderstand how they work.

    You also seem to only read parts of what I say, as you still haven’t addressed when or where Google or Wikipedia promised “real-world” plans, implementations, or documents (which are unrelated things), nor have you explained why they should have to provide them. And based on your more recent posts, I’d like to add another: even if all of that is true—which is highly doubtful—what does any of that or “unfair compensation” have to do with copyright infringement? Even if they don’t provide “real-world documents” and don’t provide fair compensation for authors, none of that makes it copyright infringement as long as the authors give permission or permission isn’t needed (e.g. fair use or public domain material).

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  218. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 3:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    All vendors that are able to publish millions of copyrighted products are fitting the slot I reserved for "example author names".

    You say that as if it means anything to us. Also, vendors, publishers, and authors are completely different. If we’re talking about books sold at a bookstore, the author writes the book, the publisher prints the book, and the bookstore sells the book to readers. They all serve different functions, so stop talking as if they’re interchangeable.

    They all do something evil which ordinary authors who choose not to do copyright infringements cannot handle properly.

    Again, publishers don’t do the same things authors do. They each have a specific function in the process of expressing an idea to a wider audience.

    Both copyright infringement and whatever these vendors are doing have one thing in common:

    So now you’re saying these “vendors” (which doesn’t actually describe Wikipedia, as they don’t actually sell anything) aren’t infringing on anyone’s copyright? And you don’t even know what it is they’re doing? Then 1) it has nothing to do with this article at all, and 2) I honestly have no idea why you think whatever it is is “evil” if you can’t even explain it to us.

    they can handle large amount of other people's material without providing proper compensation for the authors.

    1) “Proper compensation” is subjective. As long as the authors agreed to whatever compensation they’re given, that’s all that’s needed. In the case of Wikipedia, that amount is 0 because they’re all volunteers, and the Wikimedia Foundation is a nonprofit. You don’t pay volunteers to work; they do it for free because they want to or feel obligated to do so without compensation.

    2) You keep complaining about how this hurts your business, but I can’t find any aspect of what you claim YouTube and Wikipedia are or aren’t doing that would impact your business. You haven’t claimed to be providing the same services they do, and you haven’t claimed that they are using your copyrighted works at all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  219. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 3:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You call this a “market failure” or a “free market failure”, but I don’t see how the market itself is failing. The fact that quite a few independent individuals are able to succeed in this market shows that the “flood of copyrighted works in the marketplace when unlimited copying is available” is not an insurmountable problem. However, it is not the job of the market to adapt to you; you need to adapt to the market.

    our analysis suggests

    Wait wait wait. Who else is doing this analysis?

    When this piracy technology got more popular, some market vendors tried to find uses for the technology which look legimate even though it has the same unwanted behaviour that made the piracy tech illegal.

    It’s not “piracy tech”, and it’s not illegal. You also have it backwards: the technology was invented to make things easier for vendors, publishers and authors, and they just so happen to also have uses for piracy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  220. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 3:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You misunderstand. He’s saying that you don’t seem to understand what the product your selling actually is, not that you should be selling yourself. You just claimed:

    [YouTube and Wikipedia are] both web pages like my product

    but as PaulT noted

    The product you're selling is not a website.

    In fact, what you’re actually selling is a game. At least as far as I can tell.

    That said, let’s say you are selling a web site. Last I checked, neither YouTube nor Wikipedia are selling websites, either. And even if they were, the purposes of their websites are so completely different from each other that your hypothetical website product couldn’t possibly compete with both of them.

    Maybe you mean that your product is on a website. But again, that’s not competing with what YouTube or Wikipedia offer on their websites. Itch.io provides mostly games and some software. YouTube provides video streaming. Wikipedia provides encyclopedic articles on a variety of topics. None of those compete with each other.

    they have millions of items in their catalog. I have one product. How should i get my product visible from flood of millions of (unpaid&free) products?

    The number of items on YouTube’s and Wikipedia’s catalog are irrelevant unless you’re selling videos or encyclopedias. They aren’t the competition you should be concerned about. You are selling a game, or some other piece of software, on itch.io. You’re in a completely different market from YouTube and Wikipedia.

    My advice as to what to do? First, lots of very successful products get sold on itch.io. Try researching the type of marketing they do to stand out among the plethora of games for ideas. Second, think about what your product actually does. What is the benefit it provides to the consumer? Once you have that, identify what other products offer the same benefits, and then figure out what makes your product different from the rest. Any marketing you do should focus on what makes your product stand out against similar products. And make sure to be clear and concise about what your product is and does. Potential customers shouldn’t have to struggle to identify what it is your selling. If you have a website to help market your product, make it visually appealing, simple to navigate, and clear about its purpose.

    You may be successful, you may not. You aren’t guaranteed success even if you try hard. However, don’t always blame those who do succeed for your failures. Always remember, it’s better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  221. icon
    nasch (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 4:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As I mentioned before, you seem to have a loose grasp of the language

    You could have stopped there.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  222. icon
    tp (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 9:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The number of items on YouTube’s and Wikipedia’s catalog are irrelevant

    Nope. Users only have 24 hours per day time for the consumption. When they randomly choose a product from the world, whoever has the largest collection of products will get a hit more often.

    But our position is that all large product collections are illegal because of copyright laws. Large collection is what made sites like piratebay or napster popular, but these sites all rely on large collections for the popularity. Youtube and wikipedia is clearly next step in the same direction.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  223. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 17 Oct 2019 @ 2:47pm

    Re: Its not transormative...

    Users still perceive it as a ripoff of the movie and that is not transformative.

    A rip-off does not necessarily infringe on copyright.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  224. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 17 Oct 2019 @ 5:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Nope. Users only have 24 hours per day time for the consumption. When they randomly choose a product from the world, whoever has the largest collection of products will get a hit more often.

    You’re assuming that users choose products at random. They do not. A person looking for videos will go to a website like YouTube that has videos. A person looking for factual information on a topic will go to a website like Wikipedia that provides factual information. And a person who is looking for video games will not go to YouTube or Wikipedia because, while they offer millions or billions of “products”, none of those products are video games. They are going to go to a site like itch.io, Steam, or GOG that sells video games.

    Your competition isn’t with collections of large numbers of unrelated products. It’s with other products. If you focus on Wikipedia and YouTube, you’ll go nowhere fast. Focus on how to market your product among similar products first. Lots of games sell very well on itch.io, despite the existence of YouTube and Wikipedia.

    Also, Wikipedia only offers one product: a suppository of factual information.

    But our position is that all large product collections are illegal because of copyright laws.

    Again you say “our”. Who else is involved with you?

    Second, you still have not explained how large product collections violate copyright laws. You’ve mentioned not providing “full market compensation” and not providing “real-world implementations”, but there is nothing in copyright law requiring either of those things.

    Large collection is what made sites like piratebay or napster popular, but these sites all rely on large collections for the popularity.

    [Asserts facts not in evidence]

    Youtube and wikipedia is clearly next step in the same direction.

    Again, how? Especially Wikipedia, which is run by a nonprofit organization that relies on donations and volunteers to operate.

    Look, stop focusing on YouTube and Wikipedia. It won’t help you sell your product.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  225. icon
    PaulT (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 12:28am

    Re: Re: Its not transormative...

    "A rip-off does not necessarily infringe on copyright."

    As evidenced by The Asylum's entire business model.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  226. icon
    PaulT (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 12:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "You’re assuming that users choose products at random"

    That actually seems to be his entire marketing strategy. He's not actually mentioned how he's promoting the games on itch.io, for example, he's only whined that the 11 games of which he's sold exactly 1 copy haven't magically appeared on the top sellers list.

    I wonder if he'll work out that he can add things to YouTube and Wikipedia to promote the games?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  227. icon
    PaulT (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 12:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "When they randomly choose a product from the world, whoever has the largest collection of products will get a hit more often."

    ...and when they non-randomly choose something they'll choose something that they actually want.

    "But our position is that all large product collections are illegal because of copyright laws."

    Whose position? Why does size matter? Are you saying that when Disney+ launches, they will be breaking the law because they have a large back catalogue?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  228. icon
    tp (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 3:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Why does size matter?

    Creating large product collection like millions of items, requires so much effort that noone in the world has enough money to pay the salaries of those people, so there are only limited number of alternatives after that, all of them being illegal:
    1) do copyright infringement (copyright laws makes this illegal)
    2) refuse to pay the salaries (minimum wage laws make this illegal)
    3) use unpaid slaves (human rights laws makes this illegal)
    4) use robots to clone the product (all the products will look the same)
    5) let nature build the product for you (it's still too large work amount)

    We don't see any other alternatives after you've decided that your product collection needs to have millioins of items in it. If you figure out better solution, let us know.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  229. identicon
    A Guy, 18 Oct 2019 @ 4:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are apparently unfamiliar with the free/open source software movement. You can already have millions of free products that were produced in an environment that protected human rights. There you go. There's one way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  230. icon
    PaulT (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 4:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Creating large product collection like millions of items, requires so much effort that noone in the world has enough money to pay the salaries of those people"

    ...which is why there's so many people volunteering work and/or creating amateur content with no expectation of a salary on those sites you're complaining about. Have you never created things for fun, or updated something that you noticed was incorrect or out of date without expectation of payment? Is every activity to undertake only judged by what you get paid for it?

    "We don't see any other alternatives"

    While YOU don't see them, normal, well adjusted people do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  231. icon
    tp (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 4:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are apparently unfamiliar with the free/open source software movement.

    They refuse to pay the salaries and they're using unpaid slaves.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  232. identicon
    A Guy, 18 Oct 2019 @ 4:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    A giant portion of it was funded by universities and the work was done by grad/undergrad students with their professors as computer science projects.

    Look into the origin of GNU/Linux if you don't believe it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  233. icon
    tp (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 4:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    which is why there's so many people volunteering work and/or creating amateur content with no expectation of a salary

    This is a big can of worms. This volunteering work has tendency to become so professional that it stops being volunteering, and instead falls into those illegal sections, i.e. salary would be actually needed for the work, and it also has unpaid slave aspect in it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  234. icon
    PaulT (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 4:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "They refuse to pay the salaries"

    No, they don't. Thousands of people are employed developing open source projects as their main job, and the jobs of millions of others depend on open source products. You're even using several pieces of open source software right now!

    Also, the fact that you are a selfish asshole who can't conceive of contributing anything to society unless someone pays you does not mean that the rest of us are.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  235. icon
    PaulT (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 4:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, slave would imply people are forced to do something. Nobody's forced to write an article for Wikipedia if they don't want to.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  236. icon
    tp (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 4:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Thousands of people are employed developing open source projects

    My experience explicitly contradicts this. The companies who are able to pay salaries, are moving projects ourside of open source area the first operation they do. I.e. when they are planning to pay for the open source developer, they first make sure the project is no longer open source.

    Somehow paying salaries and having it open source is incompatible.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  237. icon
    tp (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 4:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    slave would imply people are forced to do something.

    Yes, like linus is so burned out that he cannot any longer control his anger.

    Nobody's forced to write

    These burned out people like linus does not happen without being forced to do something even after the activity starts to be dangerous to your health.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  238. icon
    PaulT (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 6:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "My experience explicitly contradicts this"

    Yes, but the experiences you relay on here quite often contradict reality.

    "Somehow paying salaries and having it open source is incompatible."

    Yet, the many thousands of people who are being paid right now to do that prove you wrong.

    The world is bigger than you are. Whether it's being paid to write FOSS or volunteering some leisure time to create free content, your personal experience means nothing to the experiences of other people.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  239. icon
    PaulT (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 6:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "burned out people like linus does not happen without being forced to do something"

    Linus Torvalds is employed full time to do what he does. He's not a volunteer. You might want to check some of the documented reality you keep ignoring, because you end up addressing fiction a lot of the time.

    Other people volunteer their free time to do something they like, such as coding on an interesting open source project, writing Wikipedia entries or creating YouTube videos. They may do this to counter the stress of the work day. The fact that you don't see any value in such things unless there's a price tag attached is your problem, not theirs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  240. icon
    tp (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 7:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Linus Torvalds is employed full time to do what he does. He's not a volunteer.

    That is even worse. As a professional, linus knows how to put aside his personal feelings and communicate the overall status of the linux community in his "fuck nvidia" -videos. This means the overall situation in the community is much worse than anyone anticipated.

    They may do this to counter the stress of the work day.

    This only happens at the beginning of the project, when all is fun and nice, when there isn't tons of unpaid customers screaming that your software is broken beyond repair and why they should move perl inside kernel to get more performance to perl programs...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  241. icon
    PaulT (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 7:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "That is even worse."

    No, it just makes it irrelevant to what you're saying.

    "As a professional, linus knows how to put aside his personal feelings"

    Many successful people are also assholes, and people with power don't always feel the need to self-censor. This happens no matter how open the software is.

    "tons of unpaid customers screaming that your software is broken beyond repair"

    Why is your software both popular enough to have that many users and that broken? That might be worth looking into, whether or not people paid for it.

    "why they should move perl inside kernel to get more performance to perl programs"

    Either you really don't understand what you're talking about, or you have a very specific project you've work on in mind that doesn't reflect the experiences of most people.

    Nevertheless, most people are quite happy doing what they're doing despite your complaints, and you're quite happy to use their software.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  242. icon
    tp (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 7:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Many successful people are also assholes

    So you're simply ignoring clear signs of illegal human rights problems simply because you consider linus to be an asshole?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  243. icon
    PaulT (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 7:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Human rights abuses? Are you saying that Linus is guilty of crimes against humanity, or is this just you being desperate to conflate volunteer work with slavery?

    If the latter, give it up. You've probably done as much unpaid work here as most open source contributors do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  244. icon
    tp (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 8:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Are you saying that Linus is guilty of crimes against humanity,

    No, linus is the target of the abuses.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  245. icon
    PaulT (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 8:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In that case I haven't really got a clue what you're talking about.

    Either way, your overall thesis that people volunteering their own time willingly is some kind of slavery is false, as is your insistence that only volunteers work on open source projects.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  246. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 12:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The amount of time, thought, and energy spent working on a project—overall or per day—is immaterial regarding whether you are a volunteer or not. If you can start or stop at any time and for any reason, no one is forcing you, and you are doing it purely out of passion for the project or to be helpful, then it is volunteer work, and no one believes that volunteers are or ought to be paid for their work.

    The vast majority of contributors to Wikipedia don’t get paid by the Wikimedia Foundation, nor do they expect to. And those who do get paid don’t get paid for copyrightable content they create outside of the software used to run and maintain the site and its data.

    Furthermore, the Wikimedia Foundation is a nonprofit organization that doesn’t make a profit off of Wikipedia. It’s not exactly a commercial venture.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  247. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 12:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Linus was not paid to write articles for Wikipedia. I don’t know who Linus is (a Google search failed to turn up anything relevant), but anyone with knowledge of how Wikipedia actually works would know that.

    And if you think no one would continue to do something even after the activity starts to become dangerous to your health, you clearly have never heard of workaholics. Look up Sakurai. He was being paid to work on Smash Bros., but he and he alone, by his own admission, decided to put in way too many hours into the project to the point it was detrimental to his health, and no one was forcing him to. I’m not saying that was okay, or that no business ever forces employees to overwork themselves, but a single employee burning himself out over a project is hardly evidence that the organization is doing something wrong. For all I know, he could be an outlier and maybe even a workaholic.

    You also don’t mention whether he received adequate payment for his work, or whether his contributions were copyrightable. As I said, the vast majority of people who contribute copyrightable material to Wikipedia are volunteers who don’t get paid for their contribution and don’t expect to be. As such, Linus’s experiences don’t necessarily relate to your assertions that Wikipedia can’t possibly afford to publish as much as it does and pay its employees fairly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  248. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 1:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    6) let people volunteer to do the work for free; this costs nothing and is perfectly legal; open-source and crowd-sourced projects and interactive computer services often do this

    7) pay contributors based on how well their work, and their work alone, performs using only the revenue earned from their work; again, this is perfectly legal and actually pretty common among publishers

    8) be around long enough that, over time, you accumulate millions of products at a rate you can afford to compensate the contributors fairly

    9) use a special autonomous algorithm that can autogenerate content; they exist, and their products, while often similar or basic, are not always the same

    10) have a lot of money available that can be used to compensate contributors fairly; just because you cannot imagine that any company or individual could possibly have enough money to do so doesn’t mean it’s actually impossible; show us the math that proves it’s impossible; implausible won’t cut it.

    Also, again, Wikipedia is the product, as “sold” by the Wikimedia Foundation. Saying it has a collection of millions of products is like saying a physical encyclopedia has a collection of thousands or millions of products (for each article), or that a book has a collection of products (each page). Each article isn’t its own separate product; it’s the whole thing that’s a product.

    Finally, you keep saying “we”, “us”, and “our”. Who are these other people you presume to be speaking for?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  249. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 1:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There are two kinds of contributors to free/open-source projects: those who get paid for their work, such as by grants to universities; and those who volunteer their time and work for free due to a passion for the project, as a hobby, as practice, to be helpful to the community, or out of boredom.

    Everyone involved who expects to be paid a salary generally gets paid a salary. Those who expect to be paid based on the project’s revenue generally get paid according to the project’s commercial success. Those who don’t get paid either never expected to get paid in the first place, were never promised pay, and were never forced by anyone but themselves to contribute, or didn’t get paid because the project failed.

    There are two things you consistently fail to consider:

    1) Not everyone who does work does so for the money, and many don’t even expect to get paid for it.

    2) Many authors, of either physical or digital products, don’t get paid per work but based on the individual success of each of their works. If their work fails to sell, the publisher doesn’t pay them anything. They aren’t salaried employees who get paid a set amount periodically. In many cases, the author doesn’t work for the publisher at all; they work with the publisher as a joint venture.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  250. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 1:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Assuming you’re talking about Linus Torvalds, he calls himself an asshole. And no one was forcing him to work on Linux and other open-source projects but himself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  251. icon
    tp (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 4:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Linus’s experiences don’t necessarily relate to your assertions that Wikipedia can’t possibly afford to publish as much as it does and pay its employees fairly.

    Once your encyclopedia starts to have millions of pages in it, the combined work amount is large enough that unions etc should look into their employment contracts and whether the company keeps employees outside the company for illegal reasons. Normally if you contribute to some company's product by developing it, there ought to be employment contract or subcontracting contract between the company and the people doing the product development.

    It's very strange arrangement that customers of the company would be creating the company's product instead of employees of the company doing the work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  252. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 6:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Once your encyclopedia starts to have millions of pages in it, the combined work amount is large enough that unions etc should look into their employment contracts and whether the company keeps employees outside the company for illegal reasons.

    “Keeping employees outside the company” isn’t illegal, period. Also, not all fields have unions, including “writing content for an encyclopedia”.

    Normally if you contribute to some company's product by developing it, there ought to be employment contract or subcontracting contract between the company and the people doing the product development.

    There is. Between the company and the software developers, that is. Volunteers in any project don’t typically sign a contract.

    It's very strange arrangement that customers of the company would be creating the company's product instead of employees of the company doing the work.

    It’s called “crowd-sourcing” and “relying on volunteers”, and it’s very common. There’s nothing strange about it.

    Also, the employees are “doing the work” that they are supposed to be: maintaining the code for the website, handling legal issues, and maintaining the servers.

    Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation is a nonprofit organization. They don’t actually make any money, and the bulk of the workload is done by volunteers. The fact that you still don’t understand how that works in most nonprofits shows how little you understand how volunteer work actually works. There is no contract with volunteers, volunteers don’t receive any pay, the company doesn’t make a profit, and the primary service it offers is available for free. And all of this is perfectly normal, and actually predates the Internet.

    At any rate, your unfamiliarity with this arrangement and inability to understand it doesn’t make it wrong, unethical, illegal, impossible, or implausible. Furthermore, even if the arrangement was in any way unusual (and it’s not), that still doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  253. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 6:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    None of what you said actually has anything to do with the quote you used, by the way. All that I said is there is that the anecdote you used doesn’t prove the point you were trying to make. Responding with a different argument is fine, but there was no need to quote me.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  254. icon
    PaulT (profile), 19 Oct 2019 @ 12:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I don’t know who Linus is (a Google search failed to turn up anything relevant)"

    He's talking about Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux... He's randomly switching between attacking open source software and attacking open platforms.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  255. icon
    PaulT (profile), 19 Oct 2019 @ 12:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Once your encyclopedia starts to have millions of pages in it, the combined work amount is large enough that unions etc should look into their employment contracts"

    There is no employment contract. Everybody who contributes to Wikipedia does so voluntarily with no expectation of payments.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  256. icon
    tp (profile), 19 Oct 2019 @ 1:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    “Keeping employees outside the company” isn’t illegal,

    why would any company have employees at all, if volunteers can do all the work? If your average oil company is allowed to use volunteers for drilling the oil from the ground and avoid all the salary costs, taxes and costs related to social security payments that are company's responsibilty? Companies would be stupid if they hired any employees at all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  257. icon
    PaulT (profile), 19 Oct 2019 @ 6:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    People don't volunteer to do oil drilling. People do volunteer to add to projects they enjoy in line. In both scenarios, people are paid what they agree to.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  258. icon
    tp (profile), 19 Oct 2019 @ 7:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    people are paid what they agree to.

    so if there exists people who would volunteer to do something, no company is required to pay salaries to anyone? Wouldn't that just move all activity to areas where volunteers exist, and end result is that noone gets salaries?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  259. icon
    PaulT (profile), 19 Oct 2019 @ 1:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, because there's a lot of things nobody is going to volunteer for. If your job is threatened by people who decide to do it for free of their own volition for fun, you might be in the wrong line of work.

    Although it is amusing to see someone so dead set against volunteer work sending so much time volunteering his words on the website.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  260. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 19 Oct 2019 @ 1:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Some jobs need to be done that no one would volunteer to do. A lot of products that make a lot of money require somebody to do some sort of task that few people, if any, would do without pay.

    There’re also the concepts of, “You get what you pay for,” and, “beggars can’t be choosers.” People generally expect higher quality work and products when they have to pay for them, and if you’re getting it for free, you can’t exactly be picky about what you get.

    I have no idea why you are unable to comprehend the idea of a nonprofit organization, of all things, relying on volunteer work and donations to operate, let alone the idea of people contributing to open-source or crowd-sourced projects, which are also commonplace. This is something that has existed for a long time, and they haven’t caused the economy to collapse or anything.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  261. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 19 Oct 2019 @ 2:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wait, but isn’t Linus technically the employer? More importantly, I don’t recall him being forced to work as much as he does.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  262. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 19 Oct 2019 @ 2:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I’m amused that someone who sells his products on itch.io is so mad at open platforms with tons of content the people running the platform didn’t make.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  263. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2019 @ 1:24am

    I actually had to switch out of threaded view just to see what the hell was bloating up the comment count on this article, figures it's Mr. Meshpage shitting things up again with his "if you didn't plan for millions of errors brought on by copyright you don't deserve to make money, also you owe me a Minecraft mansion" argument.

    I think it's safe to say that he's burned whatever benefit of "language barrier" doubt he's had and plummeted nosefirst into blue-level, ignorant motherfucker territory...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  264. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 21 Oct 2019 @ 10:52am

    Re:

    Actually, I’m not sure if he has a consistent argument. In particular, his arguments seem to have nothing to do with copyright law—even a misunderstanding of copyright law—as well as an inability to comprehend the idea of an unpaid volunteer, even for a nonprofit organization.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  265. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2019 @ 5:55pm

    Re: Re:

    The basis of his argument can be boiled down to a few things:

    • Corporations who are being sued over IP issues, according to him, deserve to pay through the nose for failing to account for "errors" and "illegalities", based entirely on whatever IP enforcement is accusing them of.
    • IP enforcement, on the other hand, is allowed to get away with errors such as suing the wrong people, because "they've already accounted for it". (If this logic sounds familiar, it's because it's the same fucked-in-the-head train of thought espoused by every IP enforcement asshole.)
    • Also he's worked on this amazing Meshpage project which he swears is used in technology for every mobile phone and by the MPAA! But he won't tell anyone where in the phone it's actually used or what the code is, despite the code literally being free to view on his website.

    Then again, "inability to comprehend" is a far better summary of anything he spews, to be honest.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  266. icon
    tp (profile), 22 Oct 2019 @ 3:41pm

    Re:

    you don't deserve to make money, also you owe me a Minecraft mansion" argument.

    I think you're misrepresenting the argument slightly. It was government that promised the mansion. I'm just wondering when the promised mansion is going to appear.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  267. icon
    PaulT (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 1:27am

    Re: Re:

    "It was government that promised the mansion."

    They really didn't, but if that's the fantasy that keeps you going, you go for it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  268. icon
    tp (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 6:05am

    Re: Re: Re:

    They really didn't,

    next you will claim that google didn't promise easy cracking of encryption -future, when they published their "quantum supremacy" paperwork this week in nature. The publisher had dubbed it as "wright brother's first flight" -kind of event, which means their promise is that we'll see thousands of "airplanes" in the sky in the future. So their promise is that the world will be full of quantum computers doing calculations that ordinary computers are unable to do. IBM was questioning their promises.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  269. icon
    PaulT (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 6:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So, where in that illegible rant about Google was the requested evidence that the government promised you a mansion, as you claimed?

    Anyway, I have read that article before and it claims nothing like what you just said, so I'll assume your understanding of what the government actually promised is just as wrong as your understanding on this subject.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  270. icon
    tp (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 7:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    where in that illegible rant about Google was the requested evidence that the government promised you a mansion,

    I think you need to read my previous ramblings. the proof is clearly explained in there. You just skipped the relevant sections when you read it the first time.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  271. icon
    PaulT (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 7:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So, nothing then.

    You misrepresented the article you just referenced, so I will happily assume you are misrepresenting the other proof you claim without having to bother hunting for it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  272. icon
    tp (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 7:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I will happily assume

    why take the sloppy approach?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  273. icon
    PaulT (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 7:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There is no evidence for your claims, and your claims on another subject has just been proven false. The sloppy approach would be to go on the wild goose chase you're demanding, the sensible approach is to assume you're as wrong on this subject as you are on all others.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  274. icon
    tp (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 7:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    sloppy approach would be to go on the wild goose chase you're demanding

    so, you''re just lazy bastard.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  275. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 7:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Even if the government promised you a Minecraft mansion (and that’s a big if), I don’t see how you could possibly expect them to deliver. Microsoft owns Minecraft, not the government.

    At any rate, I’m not going to dig through your ramblings to find proof for your point. Just post a link to the relevant comment or something.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  276. icon
    tp (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 7:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don’t see how you could possibly expect them to deliver. Microsoft owns Minecraft, not the government.

    Government has nice ability to setup laws that everyone in the country needs to follow. These laws direct each player to the right direction, and I expect that "if the world works together", these good stuff simply appear out of nowhere. Copyright law especially allows vendors to handle publishing and creation of these mansions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  277. icon
    PaulT (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 8:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "so, you''re just lazy bastard."

    Yes, I am too lazy to do other peoples' work for them. You have a claim, prove it, else your track record suggests you should be assumed to be lying.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  278. icon
    PaulT (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 8:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Copyright law especially allows vendors to handle publishing and creation of these mansions."

    From this new set of word salad, I wonder - are you thinking that "mansion" means something other than a large house? You're making no sense with the definition everybody else would use, so I wonder if you're thinking that you're saying something else?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  279. icon
    PaulT (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 8:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Even if the government promised you a Minecraft mansion (and that’s a big if), I don’t see how you could possibly expect them to deliver. Microsoft owns Minecraft, not the government."

    I'm trying to get him to repeat it to point out its many silly points. But, I think that his claim was something along the lines of: copyright law means everybody is meant to be treated fairly/equally, notch bought a mansion when Microsoft bought Minecraft, therefore since he thinks he worked as hard as notch did, then he also deserves a mansion. Because he doesn't have a mansion, either the government lied or pirates stole it from him.

    Utter tripe, but unless he's stumbled across some unique definitions of the words he's using I'm not sure what else to interpret, because he's clearly making less sense as he goes on in this thread somehow.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  280. icon
    tp (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 1:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You have a claim, prove it,

    you wouldnt believe the proof anyway.

    But you can use these keywords to search the previous discussion:
    mansion, government, promise, copyright, cunning plan,
    minecraft, 3d printer, digital 3d model, convert to real world,
    virtual reality, crowdsource, gaming technology, builder tool,
    feature combinations, exactly correct, number of atoms in universe,

    Given that all these keywords are matching the technology in question, these keywords alone will identify the solution.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  281. icon
    tp (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 1:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    since he thinks he worked as hard as notch did, then he also deserves a mansion.

    If you had read the original description, you would know that notch has nothing to do with the mansion in question. Other people have mansions too, you know. But notch at least managed to crowdsource extensions to his game from the community. That never worked when I tried to implement the same feature.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  282. icon
    nasch (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 1:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If you had read the original description, you would know that notch has nothing to do with the mansion in question.

    I don't think anyone has a clue what you're talking about, actually. And your list of Google keywords has not helped clear it up. At all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  283. icon
    tp (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 2:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yes, I am too lazy to do other peoples' work for them.

    raise your hand if you actually tried my builder tool before you started bashing the story I told?

    But no, none of you actually even looked at it, almost none of you even looked at the screenshots, much less the actual technology.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  284. icon
    PaulT (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 12:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "you wouldnt believe the proof anyway."

    Well, I don't believe you without proof so that changes nothing.

    "Given that all these keywords are matching the technology in question, these keywords alone will identify the solution."

    No, I'm interested in what your batshit tiny mind thinks the solution is, and whether it matches anything that sane people would conclude. My guess is not.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  285. icon
    PaulT (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 12:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "raise your hand if you actually tried my builder tool before you started bashing the story I told?"

    What does your software have to do with your claim that the government promised you a mansion. IO'm looking for something to back up your latter claim.

    "none of you actually even looked at it"

    We have, and couldn't woprk out WTF it was meant to do.

    But, either way, it's irrelevant to your claim. Prove your claim.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  286. icon
    PaulT (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 12:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "If you had read the original description, you would know that notch has nothing to do with the mansion in question"

    Yes he does. He took the money that Microsoft gave him for . Minecraft, and he bought the mansion that some celebrities were trying to buy at the same time.

    Are you now saying a person's home is only valid if they personally built it rather than . buying from someone else?

    "That never worked when I tried to implement the same feature."

    You couldn't crowdsource things because you have proven you're horrendous at marketing. That doesn't mean anyone owes you for your failure.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  287. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 10:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    First, that has nothing to do with your claim about the government promising Minecraft mansions.

    Second, why can’t you just tell us what your so-called “builder tool” is supposed to do? Yes, good software should be self-explanatory, but good marketing for a product or service should still explain what the product/service is supposed to do. If you want us to try your product, give us a good reason to do so.

    Third, most of not all the people who have been criticizing your product here (as opposed to your marketing of it or your arguments) have also explicitly stated that they tried it first.

    Fourth, I am only familiar with what you have said in the comment section of this particular article. As such, I don’t know anything about your product, including what it’s called, what it does, or where to find it. So I couldn’t try out your product if I wanted to. For this reason, I have refrained from criticizing that product outside of noting the criticisms others have made. I have only criticized your arguments and your apparent marketing, which seems to be virtually nonexistent.

    Finally, especially—but not exclusively—when dealing with selling non-free products/services, the quality of the product/service doesn’t matter if you can’t get people to try it, and especially if they don’t know it exists. Furthermore, your arguments for why you failed to sell it are flawed for reasons unrelated to its quality. As such, we can bash the story you told without addressing the quality of the product at all, which means we don’t need to test your product to find flaws in your claims. And if your story is that flawed, then we have no reason to assume or test every single aspect that isn’t inherently flawed on its face.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  288. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 10:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Government has nice ability to setup laws that everyone in the country needs to follow.

    Laws can only go so far, and they can’t explicitly target particular private organizations. They can’t just say, “Microsoft must provide everyone with a Minecraft mansion.” And it’d be unreasonable to direct every video game publisher to provide everyone with a Minecraft mansion.

    These laws direct each player to the right direction, and I expect that "if the world works together", these good stuff simply appear out of nowhere.

    The fact that you think that there exists reasonable scenario where “good stuff simply appear[s] out of nowhere” shows that you are either a troll or have highly unrealistic expectations and no understanding of how the world works.

    Copyright law especially allows vendors to handle publishing and creation of these mansions.

    First of all, copyright law doesn’t really have anything to do with vendors. I think you’re confusing your terms again. Authors “create”; publishers handle things like presentation, manufacture and distribution; vendors are the ones that end users purchase products from. While some publishers also act as vendors, as do some authors, these are all separate roles. It is generally not the case that vendors publish or create anything, really.

    Second, “allow” is a completely different beast from “require”. And AFAICT, there has never been a legal barrier that has prevented Microsoft from giving everyone Minecraft mansions. So I have no idea what you’re even arguing here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  289. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wait, are you saying he wants a physical mansion? I thought he was expecting a digital mansion. You know, in Minecraft. That’s even crazier!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  290. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 11:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    you wouldnt believe the proof anyway.

    Well, we can’t know for sure if you won’t even try. And not giving us proof isn’t going to convince anyone, while giving us proof might. Plus, it costs you nothing but a little time that you seem to have no trouble wasting anyway.

    But you can use these keywords to search the previous discussion:

    It’s not my job to do your research for you. Just give us a link to the previous discussion! Why can’t you just do that?

    Whatever, let’s just go through each keyword and see if it’s relevant to the topic: the government allegedly promised everyone a Minecraft mansion.

    • mansion
    • government
    • promise

    I just used these terms in describing the problem, so these are fine.

    • copyright

    Not sure how that’s relevant, but fine. I assume you probably mentioned copyright in the previous discussion anyway, and given how little understanding you have of that law now, I expect you didn’t understand it then either.

    • cunning plan

    Again, not terribly obvious, but fine. I can see how this could feasibly enter into the discussion.

    • minecraft

    Again, it’s in my basic summary statement of the topic, so this makes sense.

    • 3d printer

    Wait, what? How does this relate to the topic at all? Do you want a 3D-printed Minecraft mansion? Huh?

    • digital 3d model

    I guess this is fine. Technically everything in Minecraft involves a digital 3D model, and I can see this being used in the design of actual mansions, too.

    • convert to real world

    Again, what? I mean, that is what a 3D printer does, but what does that have to do with this topic? Then again, in the discussion on this page, you did suggest that copyright law requires “real-world implementations” of copyrighted materials (which it absolutely doesn’t), so maybe that’s why?

    • virtual reality

    Okay, I don’t see how this could possibly be relevant. It has nothing to do with Minecraft, copyright, 3D printers, or the government.

    • crowdsource

    This one’s odd, but could be referencing how Notch crowdsourced some features and designs in Minecraft.

    • gaming technology

    We’re talking about Minecraft, so this makes sense.

    • builder tool

    Well, you were talking about others not trying out your “builder tool”, and this could be referring to Minecraft building, so okay.

    • feature combinations

    I… don’t even know what that means.

    • exactly correct

    This isn’t so much irrelevant as it is useless. It doesn’t help us search for the discussion at all, really.

    • number of atoms in universe

    WTF? How is this supposed to help?

    Given that all these keywords are matching the technology in question, these keywords alone will identify the solution.

    I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean (what technology is in question here? solution to what?), but as I’ve just noted, many of the keywords have no relevance to the topic discussed. I cannot see how they help identify any solution. In particular, I can’t think of a scenario involving both 3D printers and virtual reality.

    At any rate, just give us a link. We’re not going to do your searching for you. I’m not even sure where I’m supposed to enter these keywords.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  291. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 11:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I have no idea what you’re talking about. That’s why I’m asking these questions. I don’t even understand what your argument actually is. Where is this “original description” you’re referring to?

    Are you asking for a mansion in Minecraft? A mansion in some virtual reality software? Some other digital mansion? A 3D-printed mansion? An actual mansion? Your list of keywords is only adding to my confusion.

    Also, where exactly has the government promised you or anyone else a mansion?

    But notch at least managed to crowdsource extensions to his game from the community. That never worked when I tried to implement the same feature.

    And your point is…?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  292. icon
    tp (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What does your software have to do with your claim that the government promised you a mansion

    The whole promise is dependent on existence of the software. The whole mansion plans are supposed to be implemented using this software. The whole mansion story would make no sense whatsoever, if you ignore or dismiss the software.

    But since you didn't even look at the software, you wouldn't understand the mansion plans either.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  293. icon
    tp (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 12:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    why can’t you just tell us what your so-called “builder tool” is supposed to do?

    it's a tool or creating 3d models. Like plans for mansions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  294. icon
    tp (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 1:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > That never worked when I tried to implement the same feature.

    And your point is…?

    the plan to build a mansion has gaps when people who promised things I need cannot deliver on their promises in time.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  295. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 1:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The whole promise is dependent on existence of the software. The whole mansion plans are supposed to be implemented using this software. The whole mansion story would make no sense whatsoever, if you ignore or dismiss the software.

    So what you’re saying is that the government made a promise based solely on the existence of your software. And somehow, the plans wouldn’t make sense without looking at the software.

    That is possibly the most incredible statement I have ever seen on this website. Look, even if the promise wouldn’t make sense without the existence of the software, there would still be some proof of the promise itself. Where is the evidence of a promise by the government to provide Minecraft mansions?

    Also, there is no reason you can’t just tell us what this software is supposed to do. We shouldn’t need to understand how it works to understand anything using the software.

    For the sake of argument, I can pretend to believe that this software of yours exists and that it does what it says it does. I can set that whole argument aside for the purposes of addressing the real question: where has the government promised anyone Minecraft mansions?

    But since you didn't even look at the software, you wouldn't understand the mansion plans either.

    You still haven’t proven or explained why we need to look at this software to understand the mansion plans. At present, we don’t even believe these plans exist at all. We don’t believe the government has promised anything about mansions. If you can’t prove that, then we have no need to address your software at all.

    You say we won’t understand it otherwise, but you haven’t proven that either. Usually, one explains the plan before explaining how it will be implemented.

    Furthermore, I have no idea where to find your software in the first place. How am I supposed to look at your software when I don’t know what it’s called, what it’s supposed to do, or where to find it?

    At any rate, others have looked at your software, including PaulT, so you when you he “didn’t even look at the software”, you’re just flat out wrong unless you have clear and convincing evidence otherwise. Furthermore, those who have seen it have consistently said that they could not figure out its intended function, so it seems pretty clear that seeing the software does not clarify anything. As such, I highly doubt that it will make this mansion story of yours make sense.

    Look, just tell us exactly what your software is supposed to do, what it has to do with the mansion story, and where the government promised anyone any kind of mansion. You’re making the claim, so you have to clarify it and give us the evidence proving it. It’s not our job to do your research or explaining for you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  296. icon
    tp (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    are you saying he wants a physical mansion? I thought he was expecting a digital mansion.

    even notch got both of them...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  297. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 1:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I’m still confused here. Are you saying you crowdsourced part of this software, but failed to get anyone to contribute certain parts? That still has nothing to do with the government promising anything.

    You’re alleging someone failed to deliver something in time for something. I’m not asking you to clarify what you meant when you said that about crowdsourcing; that’s a risk you inevitably take when you crowdsource part of your project. What I don’t understand is what that has to do with the government promising Minecraft mansions. Heck, I’m confused about what was supposedly promised!

    Also, Notch’s crowdsourcing extensions to Minecraft has nothing to do with the predicament you’re alleging you’re in, other than to disprove an earlier point you made about crowdsourcing, though that’s neither here nor there.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  298. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 1:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Okay. Thank you. I don’t know how well it works, but I’ll take you at your word, at least for now.

    I don’t see what more I need to know in order to understand whether the government made this promise you claim it has or what was promised. I know what the software does now, which is all I should need to know in order to understand the broad outline of the plan. Maybe if I needed to understand why it failed, I’d need to know more to understand some of the details, but what I’m asking is about the initial promise to make and implement these mansion plans, not about the problems that came up. Once you can establish that this promise was actually made, then we can handle the details of the software beyond its intended function and why the government failed to follow through on the promise. But right now, you haven’t given us a baseline to work from.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  299. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 1:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So this is about Notch.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  300. icon
    tp (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 1:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    but failed to get anyone to contribute certain parts?

    thats kinda understatement of the failure. Current status is that noone even looked at the technology, even badly enough that we can already declare that crowdsourcing isn't working approach, even though it was promising technique at some point. Unfortunately, part of the current plans are relying on success of crowd sourcing approach, and when that part failed , there's a gap in the execution.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  301. icon
    tp (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 2:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    what I’m asking is about the initial promise to make and implement these mansion plans,

    Well, it relates to crowdsourcing part of the work. About 10 years ago, when this project was started, there was huge frenzy about crowdsourcing wikipedia/youtube etc would solve all the problems in the world. So obviously our plans had a section that relied on this new technique.

    Note that the original promise was part of publications which popularised youtube/wikipedia and their crowdsourcing approach. When they published these facts to large crowd, these become government's promises and everyone knows government can be trusted to deliver what has been promised. Merely publishing the same material to large enough crowd makes the statements in those publications more likely to become reality.

    So when government promised that crowdsourcing approach is the future, we obviously believed it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  302. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 2:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, I can certainly understand why you’re having a problem with completing your software, then. That is a necessary risk in crowdsourcing. I can only say that you need better marketing or a different approach to getting those missing parts. That said, if no one is looking at your technology, then no one is failing to deliver on their promises in time.

    It doesn’t really explain what that has to do with the government promising anything, though.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  303. icon
    nasch (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 3:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Note that the original promise was part of publications which popularised youtube/wikipedia and their crowdsourcing approach. When they published these facts to large crowd, these become government's promises

    Um... WHAT??

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  304. icon
    tp (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 3:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I can’t think of a scenario involving both 3D printers and virtual reality.

    3d models solve this part. Both 3d printers and virtual reality gadget software rely on the same 3d model file formats, usually .obj, .stl, .blend, .glb etc files.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  305. icon
    tp (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 3:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Um... WHAT??

    It's basically the information in youtube's front page, i.e. youtube's terms of service etc, whiich every youtube user need to know.

    Basically when they have few million people reading the same information, the signal this information is giving in the world becomes so strong that governments need to step in and weaken the signal. This is what it means for government to promise something. They're trying to weaken a signal that has got too popular and strong in the world. If these signals are not weakened, then they grow too large and will cause problems.

    Note that when government weakens the signal, they cannot completely eliminate it. Instead it will steadily grow and eventually the consiquences of that signal will grow large enough that the promise becomes reality. This is why we can trust government promises. They simply never focus on weak signals, but instead when govt steps in to protect our communication, we know there is a problem and it is guaranteed to be implemented in the world. Government can only ensure that proper implementation will be done.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  306. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 3:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, it relates to crowdsourcing part of the work. About 10 years ago, when this project was started, there was huge frenzy about crowdsourcing wikipedia/youtube etc would solve all the problems in the world. So obviously our plans had a section that relied on this new technique.

    Okay, so you got caught up in the crowdsourcing frenzy. That happens. Sorry it didn’t work out for you, but I should note that, notwithstanding what some publications said or implied a while ago, crowdsourcing will not solve all the world’s problems, and not every crowdsourcing plan is guaranteed to succeed.

    When they [certain publications] published these facts to large crowd, these become government's promises…

    No. No they do not. When a privately-owned publication makes wild speculations about the future of technology and publishes these things to large crowds, they absolutely do not become the government’s promises.

    Based on your broken English, perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the U.S.’s system of government? One of the key tenants behind our country is having a free and independent press not beholden to any government. This means that what the press says is not a statement by the government, no matter how large the audience is. The government has essentially no control over anything the press says.

    So it appears that the government did not promise you anything you thought it had.

    …and everyone knows government can be trusted to deliver what has been promised.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! 🤣 I’m sorry, but unfortunately, the government cannot be trusted to deliver what has been promised. Of course, in this case it doesn’t appear to be the case that the government actually promised anything.

    Merely publishing the same material to large enough crowd makes the statements in those publications more likely to become reality.

    That’s not how it works, especially where, as here, we’re dealing with statements about future results. Something doesn’t become true or more likely to become true simply by publishing it to a large enough crowd over and over again.

    So when government promised that crowdsourcing approach is the future, we obviously believed it.

    Again, based on what you say happened, the government didn’t actually promise that. The press may have promised that, but they aren’t the government, nor is the government responsible for what they choose to publish.

    Also, “crowdsourcing is the future” does not mean “crowdsourcing is guaranteed to get you the results you want 100% of the time”.

    From what I can tell, your story is this:

    About 10 years ago, you, along with some others, started working on a piece of 3D modeling software which could be used to design mansions.

    During this time, news publications were gushing on and on about how great crowdsourcing projects like YouTube and Wikipedia are, and how crowdsourcing is the future and can be used to solve all sorts of problems.

    You assumed that, because these statements were reaching such a wide audience, the U.S. government must be making them.

    Because you trust any promise made by the government, you trusted these claims and so decided to crowdsource some of the work for your software. Unfortunately, because you couldn’t get anyone to so much as look at your project, the crowdsourcing failed miserably, leading to your software being horribly incomplete and thus nonfunctional.

    As such, you seem to be blaming the government for failing to live up to the promise you thought it had made. You also seem to be blaming YouTube and Wikipedia because you can’t understand why their crowdsourcing was successful and yours wasn’t, or possibly because you believe that they, too, are somehow responsible for the statements made by the press about crowdsourcing.

    I’m still not clear how Minecraft enters into this, but maybe it has to do with their successful crowdsourcing and maybe even the fact that Notch was able to buy a real mansion with the money he earned selling Minecraft to Microsoft. I don’t know.

    From what I can tell, you seem to be misunderstanding the law, what constitutes a promise rather than a prediction, the connection between the press and the government, and some terminology. You also seem somewhat gullible based on how you seem to think that widely-published statements are likely to be true and that the government is especially likely to fulfill its promises. And you don’t seem to know how to successfully market your products—both the mansion-designing software and the games you sell on itch.io—to your target audience or how to successfully crowdsource your project.

    To be clear, the government, Wikipedia, YouTube, and Minecraft had nothing to do with the failure of any of your products. They don’t owe you anything. I sympathize with your plight, and I’m sorry that your reliance on the predictions many publications made contributed to some of the decisions you made to your detriment, but that’s just how it goes sometimes. Widely-available publications can make predictions that don’t pan out. Crowdsourcing projects sometimes fail. And sometimes products won’t sell or even be noticed. That’s how life and the free market work. You are not guaranteed success in your endeavors. Crowdsourcing doesn’t work for every project, and it’s not going to succeed if no one both knows and is interested in your project.

    It sounds like at least one of two things held your project back:

    1) You failed to market your project well enough to attract attention, whether it be from possible contributors or future customers. At least part of the problem, based on what others have said, may be that you don’t make clear what your product is actually supposed to do anywhere where your project is visible. I’m not an expert in marketing, so I can’t help you there other than to look at what other crowdsourced projects have done to grab people’s attention and interest.

    2) For whatever reason, there just isn’t a market for your product. Not much can be done about that, unfortunately.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  307. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 3:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The government doesn’t do any of that. I honestly have no idea where you got that idea from, but unless the information is actually about the government or politics, the government almost never does anything about these signals you’re talking about.

    Here in the U.S., we have a free press. As such, the government simply cannot do what you’re saying it does. It cannot weaken a signal like that except under extreme circumstances.

    You also don’t seem to understand what constitutes a promise. It is absolutely not a failure to stop a certain piece of information from spreading, or whatever it is you’re saying here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  308. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 3:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Let me elaborate: I cannot think of a scenario that involves using both virtual reality and 3D printers. Yes, 3D models are used in both, and I’m unsurprised that both technologies use the same file formats for the 3D models. However, I can’t think of a single software that does both.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  309. icon
    tp (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 6:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I’m still not clear how Minecraft enters into this

    There was some filthy rich upper management who bought some mansions with the money the company generated.

    But mostly minecraft is just an example of crowdsourcing working properly.

    Widely-available publications can make predictions that don’t pan out.

    We obviously cannot know if the prediction has failed completely, or whether ir'll appear sometime in the future. But copyright laws are controlling publishing for exactly this reason, all the published material ought to become actual products that are available for purchase by real customers. This is why publishing someone elses works is not allowed and you always need a license to publish anything that was created by someone else.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  310. icon
    nasch (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 10:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    all the published material ought to become actual products that are available for purchase by real customers.

    So you're saying all these comments you're writing, which are published and automatically copyrighted, need to become physical products for customers to purchase. How is that going to happen? And where did you get the idea that it should?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  311. icon
    nasch (profile), 24 Oct 2019 @ 10:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Basically when they have few million people reading the same information, the signal this information is giving in the world becomes so strong that governments need to step in and weaken the signal. This is what it means for government to promise something.

    Dang dude, I didn't think you could make any less sense, but you did it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  312. icon
    PaulT (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 12:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The whole promise is dependent on existence of the software"

    Yes, in order to get money to buy a house, you usually need to work for it.

    "The whole mansion plans are supposed to be implemented using this software"

    No, many mansions were built before software existed.

    "The whole mansion story would make no sense whatsoever,"

    Your rambling is making no sense whatsoever. What to a mansion and software have in common, other than the fact that one software developer you're insanely jealous of bought one?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  313. icon
    PaulT (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 12:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "it's a tool or creating 3d models. Like plans for mansions."

    OK... so why aren't you using it to build one? Are you expecting others to do the work for you?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  314. icon
    PaulT (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 12:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Um... WHAT??"

    Actually, weirdly, it's making sense now when you consider the misrepresentation elsewhere in the article about Google's claims in the Nature article.

    I think what's happening here is that our delusional little friend read some articles hyping up crowd sourcing as the next big thing, and he thought that was some kind of guarantee. He created some piss-poor software that nobody could understand, and was disappointed when that didn't magically become successful. He then saw what notch did with his money after the Minecraft sale, and thinks that he should have the same thing, despite being a failure, because his half-remembered misinterpretation of a magazine article made him think he didn't have to do any more work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  315. icon
    PaulT (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 12:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think he's trying to make some point about YouTube monopolising a certain market and feeling that government should step in.... which is utter crap but that's about the best I can make of it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  316. icon
    PaulT (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 12:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Current status is that noone even looked at the technology"

    Which is a problem with your marketing team, not the government.

    "Unfortunately, part of the current plans are relying on success of crowd sourcing approach"

    Then, maybe try a different business model? Lots of crowdsourced projects fail, most of them way more famous and successful than you. The people behind them retool and find another way to get things started, or accept that there's no market for their product and do something else. Why not you?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  317. icon
    tp (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 5:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    OK... so why aren't you using it to build one?

    well, I want to see how well the pomised crowdsourcing is working, so I reserved part of the work for the government to implement. Now just waiting for it to be finished.

    Are you expecting others to do the work for you?

    Obviously I've myself implemented the most complicated parts, like the game engine and builder tool. Then I'm constantly doing games for ludumdare.

    But I'd prefer if I don't need to touch the area that government ought to do. It's just not acceptable that I do all the work, and my tax dollars are not doing anything. It still cost a lot of money to hand over half our salaries to government as tax, and I'm expecting proper services for my tax dollars. This includes some (digital) plans for mansions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  318. icon
    PaulT (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 6:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "well, I want to see how well the pomised crowdsourcing is working"

    It's working fine for thousands of projects. It's a shame for you that yours is one of the ones that failed, but that's life. Most small businesses fail, as do most crowdfunded projects. It sucks, but that's what happens when you decide to go it alone rather than get a regular salary from an existing business.

    "so I reserved part of the work for the government to implement"

    They already did their part - they created the currency, marketplace and regulation to allow you to market and benefit from the product you're selling. The part that's failing is the one where you're meant to create and market a saleable product.

    "Now just waiting for it to be finished."

    ...and you'll be waiting a long time, because nobody's going to do your work for you.

    "It's just not acceptable that I do all the work, and my tax dollars are not doing anything"

    They're doing everything promised. It's not their fault you invented extra promises to make you feel better about being a failure.

    "I'm expecting proper services for my tax dollars. This includes some (digital) plans for mansions."

    You can expect all you want. In the universe that everybody else is living in, this will never happen. I'm sorry that you invented a fantasy world for yourself, but the rest of us in reality can't help you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  319. icon
    tp (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 6:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    the rest of us in reality can't help you.

    of course you can help, if you want. That's what crowdsourcing is all about. You helping me in my quest to create mansions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  320. icon
    nasch (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 6:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's the jump from "this thing was hyped up a bunch" to "the government promised me this would work" with no steps in between that takes it right to crazy town.

    I think he's trying to make some point about YouTube monopolising a certain market and feeling that government should step in....

    Maybe, but then there's "This is what it means for government to promise something" which doesn't fit in at all. Government needs to "weaken the signal" of YouTube, which means they promised him crowdsourcing would work and he could buy a mansion??

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  321. icon
    tp (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 6:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How is that going to happen?

    while creating some copyrghted works, the rules that copyright laws are enforcing are suggesting some operations that might help with the task

    And where did you get the idea that it should?

    it comes from experience (of creating copyrighted works.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  322. icon
    nasch (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 6:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    it comes from experience (of creating copyrighted works.)

    Lots of people have a lot of experience creating copyrighted works (I do it all day), but don't come to the same conclusion. So this is not a very satisfying answer.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  323. icon
    tp (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 6:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    but don't come to the same conclusion.

    This is the whole idea behind copyright laws. That authors come up with their own solutions instead of all the solutions being the same. If you copy someone elses work, you're not contributing to the "new ideas", but instead you just duplicate existing ideas. But obviously coming up with something original takes alot more work than just cloning someone elses work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  324. icon
    nasch (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 7:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This is the whole idea behind copyright laws. That authors come up with their own solutions instead of all the solutions being the same.

    Sure, but "and then the government promises that all those things will be physical objects available for sale" is NOT the idea behind copyright laws.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  325. icon
    PaulT (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 7:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "of course you can help, if you want"

    OK, I'll correct that - the rest of us won't help you, because you've given nobody any reason to help you over and above your many, many competitors.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  326. icon
    PaulT (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 7:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "the rules that copyright laws are enforcing"

    Copyright is only there to try and ensure that other people don't profit from your work before you do. It can't help make people want to buy your product in the first place.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  327. icon
    tp (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 8:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    the rest of us won't help you

    We know that government employees don't have the same work ethics than people employed in private sector. Some projects have waited 20 years for government employees to notice that their work is not yet done, but I still trust the government to eventually get past their practises and do their jobs. But obviously it's government's own decision how well they want to do their job -- all I can do is provide tools needed to do the work, show them around the office and mark the target task that needs to be done. But it's governments own issue if they want to do good job or not.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  328. icon
    PaulT (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 8:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Again, I'm sorry that you made up a story in your head about how crowdsourcing was somehow a government promise to give you a big house. But, the only person to fail at their job (creating a product that people actually want to buy and marketing it successfully) is you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  329. icon
    tp (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 9:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It can't help make people want to buy your product in the first place.

    The idea behind open source is that customers don't need to buy the product, but they get the license without compensation. This supposedly makes it easier for customers to choose to use the product, experiment with different products, evaluate the product's suitability for your problems and finally they need to follow onerous license requirements.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  330. icon
    tp (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 9:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    creating a product that people actually want to buy and marketing it successfully

    this is completely crazy requirement and not going to be implemented.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  331. icon
    PaulT (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 11:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Then why do so many of your competitors manage it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  332. icon
    PaulT (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The idea behind open source is that customers don't need to buy the product"

    No, the idea behind open source is that the source code is open and can be examined and shared within the licence terms. Given that it makes more sense to sell services and support while giving the code away for free, but nothing prevents you selling a compiled version if the code to customers who wish to do so. That would be dumb, but an available choice.

    "finally they need to follow onerous license requirements"

    Such as? Are you really the type that complains that you can't reuse someone else's work without agreeing to their terms!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  333. icon
    nasch (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 11:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    this is completely crazy requirement and not going to be implemented.

    Now I'm starting to wonder if this is all an elaborate troll operation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  334. icon
    tp (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 4:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, the idea behind open source is that the source code is open and can be examined and shared

    That is outdated view. In reality, the community wasn't interested in examining the source code or improving the product. They weren't even interested about sharing the work with their friends.

    Instead, the source code availability was misused for trolling and "critique" purposes to make the work appear less valuable.

    This is why compilable source code for my work is no longoer available. When the community misuses the features provided, those features will be taken away to prevent such misuse again.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  335. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 4:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    well, I want to see how well the pomised crowdsourcing is working, so I reserved part of the work for the government to implement.
    But I'd prefer if I don't need to touch the area that government ought to do.

    No part of crowdsourcing involves any part of the government doing anything. I have never heard of any government contributing to a crowdsourced project. The idea of crowdsourcing is that members of the general public contribute their thoughts, ideas, and abilities to the project.

    It's just not acceptable that I do all the work, and my tax dollars are not doing anything.

    It is perfectly acceptable for you to do all the work. Not everything gets done with crowdsourcing, and crowdsourcing doesn’t guarantee that the public will contribute to your project. Regardless, your tax dollars are being put to work, but no one expects those tax dollars to go toward crowdsourced projects but you.

    It still cost a lot of money to hand over half our salaries to government as tax, and I'm expecting proper services for my tax dollars. This includes some (digital) plans for mansions.

    I was unaware that anyone in the U.S. pays over half their salaries in taxes, but fine. The government isn’t supposed to create digital plans for mansions to anyone’s project, unless you have some sort of explicit contract with the government.

    Look, unless the government has actually said something about contributing to your project, they don’t have to do anything for you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  336. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 4:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    …is that sarcasm? What about that is so ridiculous? That’s just common sense.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  337. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 5:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That is outdated view. In reality, the community wasn't interested in examining the source code or improving the product. They weren't even interested about sharing the work with their friends.
    Instead, the source code availability was misused for trolling and "critique" purposes to make the work appear less valuable.

    Name five times where that’s actually happened. That isn’t what typically happens with open source.

    Plus, part of the point of open source is for people to critique it. In other words, critiquing the work is not only expected, it’s actually encouraged.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  338. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 5:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There was some filthy rich upper management who bought some mansions with the money the company generated.

    And…?

    But mostly minecraft is just an example of crowdsourcing working properly.

    So look at what they did to see how to make it work properly. By your own admission, it hasn’t worked for you.

    We obviously cannot know if the prediction has failed completely, or whether ir'll appear sometime in the future.

    Well, I’m not 100% certain what you think was predicted, but you did say that they said stuff like how crowdsourcing will “solve all the problems in the world.” I can guarantee that that prediction is wrong because that would be highly unrealistic.

    But copyright laws are controlling publishing for exactly this reason, all the published material ought to become actual products that are available for purchase by real customers.

    That has nothing to do with why copyright law exists. It has nothing to do with enforcing promises or ensuring availability. In fact, copyright actually reduces availability.

    While there is a requirement that the copyrighted work must be fixed in some sort of medium (which can be digital, by the way), nothing requires that the work must be made “available for purchase by actual customers”. For example, I could write a book, submit a copy to the U.S. Copyright Office for registration, and then never make another copy or sell it to anyone. There is nothing in any U.S. law that requires me to actually sell my book or give it to anyone else. The copyright is still valid, and I could sue over unauthorized copying that doesn’t fall under fair use or some other exception and win.

    That also has absolutely nothing to do with what we’re talking about here. It has nothing to do with predictions made by publications, promises made by the government, or crowdsourcing.

    This is why publishing someone elses works is not allowed and you always need a license to publish anything that was created by someone else.

    Again, this has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here. There is also nothing connecting your premise to your conclusion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  339. icon
    tp (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 5:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That isn’t what typically happens with open source.

    Well, as far as I can see, the argument always goes to "popularity" argument. If you project isn't the most popular project on the planet, it basically has no chance and thus supporting such projects is not worth the effort. (even all mighty Stallman fell into this trap)

    But it misses the point that all projects are originally in that same state, while they're being developed, i.e. they don't have community support at the beginning, and they don't have working codebase. It takes long time to build those features.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  340. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 5:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    while creating some copyrghted works, the rules that copyright laws are enforcing are suggesting some operations that might help with the task

    The rules “enforced” by copyright laws do not suggest anything about making physical products from every copyrighted work. Nothing in copyright mandates, suggests, or mentions such a thing.

    (By the way, laws don’t enforce rules; they are the rules.)

    Furthermore, this has no bearing on the current topic. It has nothing to do with crowdsourcing or mansions.

    it comes from experience (of creating copyrighted works.)

    Experience in creating copyrighted works doesn’t magically give one understanding of what the law says. People create copyrighted works all the time without the slightest bit of understanding of copyright law. At any rate, this answer explains nothing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  341. icon
    tp (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 5:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In fact, copyright actually reduces availability.

    This is true, but wide availability isn't the most important feature.

    Usually copyrighted work availability is reduced using exclusive licenses.
    Basically publishers need to ensure that the same work isn't available via other competing publishers, so they reduce the scope of the work by limiting author's chance to license the work to multiple publishers at the same time. The contract between publisher and the author regularly have sections designed to limit the availability of the work.

    This is designed feature of copyright system.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  342. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 5:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Based on what he’s said in response to my own queries, the software in question would use digital mansion plans to create 3D models. What it does with those models is unclear, but that’s the connection between the mansion and the software.

    Of course, I don’t see why you’d have to actually see the software to connect the dots between his software and the rest of the story. The parts of his story that don’t make sense have nothing to do with the software itself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  343. icon
    tp (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 6:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Experience in creating copyrighted works doesn’t magically give one understanding of what the law says.

    It's difficult to understand what the law says, if you don't have experience with the actual activity that the law was designed to protect.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  344. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 6:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It’s not 100% clear what he thinks the government promised him. He seems to think that the government is supposed to make mansion plans for his software and/or finish the implementation of the software. That is, he seems to think that, when he crowdsources part of his project, the government has promised to do that part of the work.

    As far as the connection between the publications’ predictions and the government’s promise, here’s what I think he thinks:

    If a publication makes some sort of statement that the government doesn’t agree with or doesn’t support or something, the government is required to do something to make that information less visible or something. If it doesn’t, the government is tacitly making a promise to enforce the statement.

    Why he thinks the government is required to do anything about what private individuals or organizations say or publish is beyond me.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  345. icon
    tp (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 6:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    crowdsourcing doesn’t guarantee that the public will contribute to your project.

    This is true, but this is why government is involved in the process. General public simply doesn't do anything, unless government is asking them to do that operation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  346. icon
    tp (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 6:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    unless government is asking them to do that operation.

    I'll explain this more... When US president said that they will go to moon, the general public started working towards that goal and eventually nasa managed to bring some sand from their weekend holiday at moon surface.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  347. icon
    nasch (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 9:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    When US president said that they will go to moon, the general public started working towards that goal

    NASA and some contractors did. How did the general public help, other than by paying taxes?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  348. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 10:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I believe that you are the one missing the point. No one is saying that it’s not worth working on if it’s not popular. There are two issues to look at before deciding there’s no market and giving up:

    1) If there are multiple products out there that do the same thing (or something similar), you should find a way to make it somehow different from its competitors.

    2) You should find some way to market your product, and thus spread awareness of your product. I am not in marketing, so I can’t give you any ideas here, but even if you have the best product for the task, it won’t sell if no one is aware it exists or what it does.

    Once you have people looking at your product, if they still aren’t buying/contributing, then either your product needs improvement or no one is interested in anything like your product.

    At any rate, it’s not an argumentum ad popularum. It’s simply how the market works. If no one is interested in your product or knows it exists, then your product won’t perform well on the market. By all means, keep trying. But keep in mind that even your best might not be successful.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  349. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 11:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Tell that to the lawyers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  350. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 11:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    My point was that copyright law can never increase availability, only decrease it. Whether that is justified or not is an entirely different matter that makes no difference here.

    I’m not going to address any of what you just said because it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand and doesn’t contradict anything I said. AFAICT, it’s basically just about exclusive licenses, which is completely immaterial.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  351. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 11:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    By the way, none of what you just said has anything to do with open source, yet you’re responding to my comment about open source. Try to stay on topic and actually address what I said here, not some other point.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  352. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 11:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    this is why government is involved in the process. General public simply doesn't do anything, unless government is asking them to do that operation.

    No, the government does not get involved in the process. That isn’t how crowdsourcing works at all. When has the government ever gotten involved in a crowdsourced project before the general public?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  353. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 11:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    1) The project to get to the Moon was not a crowdfunded project, so that doesn’t prove anything here.

    2) In that case, the President himself actually made an explicit promise to get a man on the Moon. This was not a case where some bit of information reached such a large audience that it became the government’s promise. This was a case where the government itself made a promise and worked to keep it.

    3) The Moon project was deeply unpopular with the general public, who thought it was a complete waste of taxpayer money.

    4) Excluding the fact that NASA is funded by taxpayer money, the general public had no involvement whatsoever in the project to get a man on the Moon. NASA is a government agency, and its employees are government employees. It is not part of the general public

    5) Even before Kennedy promised to get a man on the Moon, NASA was planning on doing that eventually. Kennedy just sped up the process, if anything.

    In other words, that example doesn’t prove or suggest that the general public doesn’t get working until the government gets involved (note: Wikipedia gets a lot of contributions from the general public without government involvement), that the government ever gets involved in crowdsourced projects, or that the government has promised anything other than to get a man on the Moon.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  354. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 25 Oct 2019 @ 11:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry. My first point was supposed to say, “The project to get to the Moon was not a crowdsourced project, so that doesn’t prove anything here.”

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  355. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 1:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Because your approach is so sloppy, it makes Sloppy Joes look like Chateaubriand steaks.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  356. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 1:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Welp. I sincerely did not expect tp to double down and continue shoveling his manure up this ancient thread. His refusal to clarify his explanations and return to his unspecified rants about FOSS was expected, though.

    To pre-empt you, bhull, another recurring trope of Tero Pulkinnen's tortured Minecraft mansion story is his insistence that his revolutionary technology is, in fact, publicized. To quote him, and I wish this was satire, he advertised his amazing multimillion-dollar tech in London. On two public buses. To him, that's more than enough to validate his demand for a mansion.

    Mr. Meshpage's other recurring gripe, rooted in his own beliefs about what copyright should be, is his insistence that the control offered to creators by copyright law is meant for them to remove competition in the market. According to him, older works not only make it harder to push newer products, but apparently they also force developers like him to keep answering tech support calls for their legacy tech.

    So his answer? Copyright law, he insists, offers creators legal permission to nuke all copies of older works, on demand. This includes the public domain.

    I apologize for the brain cells lost by dealing with this Scandinavian scumsucker, and leave it up as an example of how fucked in the head copyright advocates are. Seriously, if tp had a womb where his brain is he'd have solved Japan's ageing population crisis.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  357. icon
    PaulT (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 1:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "To quote him, and I wish this was satire, he advertised his amazing multimillion-dollar tech in London. On two public buses."

    You missed out the best part. He was eventually convinced to share the ad that played on the buses here (via a YouTube link, because of course he uses that despite his regular objections to it). The ad was so cryptic that it failed to even mention what it was advertising outside of the name, the only information about the product was a URL. That's the sort of marketing that barely works with existing household names, let alone obscure unknown software targeted at an audience who wouldn't comprehend a full detailed explanation.

    That's one of the reasons why I consider him so ripe for mockery here. He's not just someone who's tried and failed, he's deliberately attempted the very worst methods for what he's trying to do. Then, having inevitably failed (and anyone with a passing knowledge of tech marketing could have told him that was inevitable with his methods), he's decided to play the victim. It's not that he's bad at what he tried to do, others who have succeeded ahead of him must have cheated somehow.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  358. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 5:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I did in fact miss the YouTube link he posted, if at all. Frankly, whoever told him that was a great idea (spend the money on two insignificant transport vehicles, in another country, targeting an audience that's very unlikely to pay for B2B-level technology) deserves to be sued by tp.

    I'll grant him points for being dumb enough to take money out on a doomed advertising blitz that went out with a whimper. Maybe he should've taken tips from Shiva Ayyadurai.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  359. icon
    PaulT (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 6:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I did in fact miss the YouTube link he posted, if at all"

    The limitations of search here don't seem to allow me to find the original thread, but the magic of YouTube account history allows me to confirm this is the one:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UF0zIMI2xA

    Feast your eyes, and imagine how effective that would be in the context of a tech audience that's remotely in the market for... whatever that does, and then imagine how effective it would be on public transport....

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  360. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 7:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Welp. I sincerely did not expect tp to double down and continue shoveling his manure up this ancient thread.

    I certainly did not expect him to keep it up for like a week. It’s funny how in terms of the internet, “one or two weeks” is “ancient”, but yeah. I was even more surprised when he responded in a different thread.

    His refusal to clarify his explanations and return to his unspecified rants about FOSS was expected, though.

    Since this is the first time I’ve personally dealt with tp, I’ll take your word for it being expected. I don’t know what FOSS is, though.

    In that case, I suppose that rather than it being surprising that it took him a week to actually explain anything, it’s more surprising that he did so at all.

    To pre-empt you, bhull, another recurring trope of Tero Pulkinnen's tortured Minecraft mansion story is his insistence that his revolutionary technology is, in fact, publicized. To quote him, and I wish this was satire, he advertised his amazing multimillion-dollar tech in London. On two public buses. To him, that's more than enough to validate his demand for a mansion.

    That’s certainly interesting. I had gathered from other comments that he had done some publicizing, which was why I was careful to mention that any marketing also had to explain what the product is and what it’s supposed to do, and I also told him to look at successful products for marketing ideas. That’s probably (I hope) why he never mentioned the bus ads in our conversation.

    Incidentally, I’m still unclear as to whether he’s expecting an actual mansion or digital plans for a mansion. He seems to go back and forth on that.

    Copyright law, he insists, offers creators legal permission to nuke all copies of older works, on demand. This includes the public domain.

    Well, that’s a new one. I’ve heard a lot of crazy ideas, but that definitely takes the cake.

    I apologize for the brain cells lost by dealing with this Scandinavian scumsucker, and leave it up as an example of how fucked in the head copyright advocates are.

    No apology necessary. It was a fun exercise in dealing with people with illogical logic.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  361. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 7:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    ...Wow, okay, what the fuck did I look at? Was that a programming student's first attempt at an engine proof or one scene from a subliminal hypnosis video?

    See, I might have given Mr. Meshpage some credit for spending money on London advertisers, but this? The idea that he had to part with an amount of money that is likely not insignificant, but someone in London's public transport advertisement department decided it was smart to give away valuable ad space to this motherfucker? Yeah, that's about where all my suspension of disbelief gets flushed down the toilet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  362. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 7:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don’t know what FOSS is, though.

    An acronym for "Free and open-source software". Granted, where Hamilton is outright venomous and vitriolic about FOSS, tp seems benign and confused. At least, when you're giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    In that case, I suppose that rather than it being surprising that it took him a week to actually explain anything, it’s more surprising that he did so at all.

    Well, in the sense that his explanation wasn't horribly convoluted and full of holes. Or, in the same sense that decapitation is a guaranteed headache cure.

    Incidentally, I’m still unclear as to whether he’s expecting an actual mansion or digital plans for a mansion. He seems to go back and forth on that.

    He pretty much does. All that's established that he thinks it's easy, should be essentially instantaneous, and ideally be as expensive and lavish as possible... logistics, government, taxpayers be fucking damned.

    I’ve heard a lot of crazy ideas, but that definitely takes the cake.

    It's not that new. The existence of the public domain has been a consistent sore spot for many in copyright advocacy. Granted, Tero is a bit more extreme in that he wants the public domain be outright wiped. Where he's fucked is his explanation for why older works should be nuked; it's so the creators don't have to provide free on-call support. How the hell this works for books and other types of media I have no fucking clue...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  363. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 7:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, he claims it’s a 3D modeling program. Though you certainly wouldn’t be able to gather that from the ad. I mean, it doesn’t explain what the product is, what it does, or who the target audience is. Not to mention the fact that advertising a purely digital product on a bus… That doesn’t make any sense.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  364. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 8:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    With no interface and just a render? This is the kind of thing you see in high school programming classes, not technology that is employed by the film, game and mobile app industries. You'd think that he'd be able to show how it's used... like in a portfolio... but nah, shitty renders equals Minecraft mansion!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  365. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 12:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, I never said it was a good 3D modeler. By his own admission, it is also incomplete (which is likely one reason for the lack of an interface).

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  366. icon
    PaulT (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 1:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "lack of an interface"

    Huh, I can't imagine why there's not many users for that product in such a competitive market....

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  367. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 1:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, that and the incomplete product. For which he still wants his mansion.

    It's like the guy looked at how Mitch Bainwol does it and reorganized his respiratory system to run on copyright cum instead of oxygen...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  368. icon
    PaulT (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 1:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yep, he wants a mansion, even though he seems incapable of telling people what his Windows 10 only application actually does apart from that it's some kind of 3D modeller.

    Meanwhile, I can go to blender.org and get a full featured multi-platform 3D modelling package with a massive community behind it for the same price.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  369. icon
    tp (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 7:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I can go to blender.org and get a full featured multi-platform 3D modelling package

    And you'll be fighting with it's right-mouse-button-select stupidity for whole week before getting any 3d model.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  370. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 11:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, by all accounts, that’s still better than what people have been able to do with your software. For example, it appears to lack an interface.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  371. icon
    PaulT (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 7:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yet, it's not only likely many times better than your software, the community around it have written many tutorials and guides to help out. Where is your community?

    But, given that I'm not a Windows user, I can't compare so have to use your competitors anyway.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  372. icon
    PaulT (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 7:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That is fun, isn't it? The guy who apparently doesn't supply a graphical interface saying that interface design is a reason not to use competing software. Without a hint of irony.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  373. icon
    tp (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 10:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That’s not how browsers work;

    thats simply not true. check the "tool download" option rom the web page.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  374. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 6:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Huh? I have no idea what the connection is between that comment and the quote you used, and the quote doesn’t even come from the comment you’re replying to. Please clarify.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.