Disney+ Titles Disappear Without Warning, Bringing Confusion To The Streaming Wars

from the here-today,-gone-tomorrow dept

While there's little doubt that cheaper, more flexible streaming TV options are a definite step up from overpriced cable TV channel bundles, we've noted for a while how there's a problem in the sector it hasn't spent much time thinking about. As companies rush to lock down your favorite content via exclusives, users are increasingly being forced to hunt and peck among rotating catalogs to find the content they're looking for. Want to watch Star Trek? You'll need to subscribe to CBS All Access. Want to watch The Office? You'll need to subscribe to Comcast's streaming service. Friends? You'll need AT&T.

The one two punch of ever shifting licensing deals and exclusives, shared among more than a dozen different services, risks over-complicating finding the content users are looking for. Push this particular idea too far in that direction, and consumers are going to simply pirate -- an ironic outcome to a decade spent trying to migrate pirates to legit streaming alternatives.

Case in point: Disney has done amazing work driving new users to its Disney+ streaming service with low(ish) price point and exclusive programs like The Mandalorian. But users this week began noticing that movies that were on the service just last month are already falling out of rotation, without users being notified that they were disappearing:

"...as 2020 began, some Disney Plus users noticed that a few films had gone missing from the streaming library.

Dr. Dolittle, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Home Alone and Home Alone 2, and The Sandlot are no longer streamable on Disney Plus. All these titles disappeared without warning, and so far, Disney has not commented on the titles.

Many fans are surprised by films dropping off the service, particularly since Disney hasn’t issued press releases about the changes. Where companies like HBO and Netflix put out monthly bulletins of everything coming to and leaving their streaming services each month, so viewers can plan their last-minute binges, Disney has only emphasized new arrivals, not departures.

To be clear this isn't the end of the world, but it does create a level of consumer annoyance that, if driven at too large of a scale, could drive users back to pirating content. Eventually the industry needs to work in collaboration to make it easier to subscribe and unsubscribe from numerous services, track which services you're subscribed to, clearly notify users when content licenses expire, and make it easier to search across multiple platforms to find particularly content.

Ignore the lessons of the past (that piracy is a competitor and a meaningful metric of potential customer dissatisfaction), and the sector is going to relive it. At which point you can easily see the industry blaming everything but its itself ("we gave you everything and you still pirated you ungrateful wretch") for customers who drift back to piracy.

Filed Under: disney plus, exclusives, movies, silos, streaming
Companies: disney


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Mark Harrill (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 4:43am

    Beast's Doghouse

    Has anyone checked Beast's Doghouse for the movies? I seem to remember that was a place where baseballs went to never be seen again.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 6:34am

    Soon streaming will have the same little text ads telling you how your provider is not going to be carrying your fav shows anymore .....

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

  • icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 6:36am

    This makes no sense for Disney

    This doesn't make a lick of sense. At least with say, the Office leaving Netflix or a movie such as the Firm leaving Hulu, Neither Hulu nor Netflix own those two particular pieces of content so it makes sense for them to leave seeing as their lease expired. With Disney+, it makes no sense whatsoever because Disney owns the property to begin with. What reason does Disney have to remove them when there are far more negatives associated with removing content they own than keeping it up? Could somebody please explain it to me?

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

    • icon
      Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 6:41am

      Re: This makes no sense for Disney

      It could be the case that Disney is using its "Vault" business model (i.e. purposefully holding back content and then releasing it later to high sales), but that made sense in the age of physical media and not when quick piracy is a competitor.

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

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 12:30am

        Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

        "It could be the case that Disney is using its "Vault" business model (i.e. purposefully holding back content and then releasing it later to high sales), but that made sense in the age of physical media..."

        Unfortunately the control freaks at Disney still think the Disney Vault makes sense. It never did, given how many it drove to piracy.

        I'm thinking the good trolls at Disney have drunk the kool-aid and accepted the hype that "piracy is dead" because reasons and thus it is now possible to go right back to the good old days of physical media and movie theatres.

        I used to say that there will come a time when the internet has become so screwed by greedy copyright cult corporations and legal snares the only ones to still have decent service will be the pirates. Disney's certainly always put the extra hours in to make that vision a reality...

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

      • identicon
        Talmyr, 8 Jan 2020 @ 4:46am

        Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

        The 'Vault' still makes some sense to Disney, in the sense that you want people to keep coming back, so rotate stuff out... except for all the people you lose by doing that.

        Plus, there is probably way more Disney than anyone can realistically watch, so chances are they figure it won't hurt to 'retire' some for a while. Then they can bring it back with a fanfare...

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

    • identicon
      Jason, 7 Jan 2020 @ 6:43am

      Re: This makes no sense for Disney

      It's the whole "Disney vault" thing but with streaming. It didn't make very much sense then, either. Unless the whole plan is to annoy would-be-paying customers with artificial scarcity, anyway.

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

      • icon
        Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 6:48am

        Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

        As I said, the "Disney Vault" business model doesn't make sense in the age of rampant piracy and, moreso, devalues their own product.

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

        • identicon
          Jason, 7 Jan 2020 @ 6:53am

          Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

          Completely agreed. Your post appeared while I was typing mine. :)

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

          • icon
            Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 6:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

            Ah. My apologies, then.

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

            • identicon
              Jason, 7 Jan 2020 @ 7:16am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

              No worries.

              I sometimes wish the discussions would automatically refresh, but it's probably not worth the overhead.

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

            • icon
              Spaceboy (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 10:46am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

              Enter copyright lawyer -

              You are hereby issued a cease and desist for sharing pirated content. You clearly stole Jason's idea by coming up with the same idea a few minutes after he did.

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

        • identicon
          Bruce C., 7 Jan 2020 @ 7:10am

          Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

          Vault model: When distributing DVDs/blu-rays it kind of makes sense as long as the discs are ones that are actually popular with multiple generations. Other titles haven't aged so well.

          Disney seems to think demand for a small selection of older titles can be used to drive demand for the streaming service, but a subscription isn't the same at all. Unless they expect people to subscribe for access to particular titles and then cancel their subscriptions. Which is bass-ackwards from the better profit model of a set it and forget it subscription.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 7:03am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

            but a subscription isn't the same at all

            Exactly. A friend of mine once said to me, "why do I need to buy CDs anymore when I can just subscribe to a music streaming service and listen to whatever I want whenever I want."

            Well, you can't if they rotate what's available in their library.

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

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 12:39am

          Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

          "As I said, the "Disney Vault" business model doesn't make sense in the age of rampant piracy and, moreso, devalues their own product."

          It never really made sense. Disney has always been considered a veritable Iran of Copyright (remember when they went after every comic artist using anthropomorphic birds and mice?) and many of their marketing decisions reflect a desire of control rather than a desire to actually make money. Disney and Sony both stand out as the core members of this Church of Holy Copyright - just that disney's window dressing is a lot fluffier than Sony's.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 7:19am

        Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

        When you are producing content in batches, like DVDs, once you have sold out, it makes sense to wait for demand to build up before pressing a new batch, as there is a minimum number of sales for the pressing to be profitable. When you are dealing with digital copies, it costs so little to keep a copy available that it makes no sense to remove a film from a service even if they have been no views for several years.

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

        • icon
          Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 8:21am

          Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

          Not only that, but in the case of Disney+, it’s a streaming service, so à la carte Digital Copies don’t even factor in the equation when one is paying for all of the content per month for a monthly fee…

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 9:24am

          Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

          there is a minimum number of sales for the pressing to be profitable

          The costs are minimal. A glass master costs a couple of thousand dollars, but that already exists and can be reused. Even a small run of 1000 discs with packaging won't be much more than $2/unit (and the cost can be passed along). This excuse doesn't work at Disney's scale.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 9:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

            You are ignoring all the costs involved in getting those discs to the customer via a retail outlet. Also, unless you are doing direct sales, 1000 discs are no where near enough to send 1 to every possible outlet. A band selling DVDs at their gigs could find that level of production useful, but the possible profits would not pay for all the management and legal time involved inside a large bureaucracy, or the management and stocking time at a retail outlets.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 12:02pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

              You are ignoring all the costs involved in getting those discs to the customer via a retail outlet.

              The existence of dollar stores makes me think this could be done for less than a dollar per unit.

              1000 discs are no where near enough to send 1 to every possible outlet.

              That's the point. If some obscure band can get prices like that, Disney can get their costs even lower. With their well-known name they can get people to pay an extra $5 or $10 for "classic" re-releases, and they should have little trouble selling a box of discs to every Walmart. They just don't want to; not because it would be unprofitable, but because they think the artificial scarcity will benefit them more.

              If the old Disney movies went out of copyright, other companies would be racing to press the discs.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 12:45pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

                You keep looking at the wrong part of the costs. A band can decide to get a DVD made, whilst having a pint after a band practice, have one of them send a copy of the masters o the pressing plant the next day, and once the receive their box of DVDs, all they have to do is put some in the van when they set out for a gig, and have a roady sell them to fans.

                They will have sold out their run of DVDs before Disney have managed to hold the meeting to decide whether the rerun is worthwhile, never mind run the bureaucratic processes involved in getting a copy of the master to the pressing plant, and organizing the distribution from the plant to the distribution warehouses, along with the advertising campaign to drive the sales.. Disney only think in terms large scale distribution, and that requires large volumes, and lots of management time, actual production costs are small part of their costs. Because of this Disney will have a high sales volume as a minimum for a repressing of a DVD.

                If Disney films were out of copyright, there are companies that would be producing copies, but they would be companies with much smaller overheads than Disney, as in companies with a turnover that would not pay the salary of one Disney executive.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 8:17am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

                  If Disney films were out of copyright, there are companies that would be producing copies, but they would be companies with much smaller overheads than Disney, as in companies with a turnover that would not pay the salary of one Disney executive.

                  If Disney's unable to compete, why should that be society's problem? If beaurocracy prevents them from releasing the material, they shouldn't be allowed to keep copyright on it. I guarantee you they'd solve all these beaurocratic and logistical hurdles really quickly if that were the deal.

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

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 1:22am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

                "The existence of dollar stores makes me think this could be done for less than a dollar per unit."

                The existence of this comment makes me think you don't understand how that end of the market sources its stock.

                "If some obscure band can get prices like that, Disney can get their costs even lower"

                At the same quality, with the logistics and additional costs (storage, transport, breakages, etc) involved with wide distribution, along with the end of life costs of dealing with unsold stock? Unlikely.

                I'd read a few things about scale distribution if I were you, things change somewhat with the kinds of numbers Disney deal with vs. your garage band.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 8:36am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

                  The existence of this comment makes me think you don't understand how that end of the market sources its stock.

                  That's not the point. The point is that "minimum number of sales for the pressing to be profitable" can in no way justify the Disney vault strategy, and never could. If companies can profitably sell cheap plastics for $1 in large quantities, there's certainly a higher but reasonable price at which Disney could sell any non-obscure vaulted title profitably.

                  Let's say $60/disc, with a run of 10,000, exclusively sold online and shipped via USPS domestic mail. There's no way that would be unprofitable, even if the amount of profit is a trifle by Disney's standards.

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

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 8:50am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

                    "If companies can profitably sell cheap plastics for $1 in large quantities"

                    FFS, that's my point. You're missing the point where they often buy excess stock AT A LOSS to the original retailer/manufacturer. Of course they're able to offer stock cheaply if they're buying it for less than it cost to make and distribute it in the first place.

                    "Let's say $60/disc"

                    Why would people suddenly start paying that much now? That's over 3 times the current price of a new Disney disc.

                    "There's no way that would be unprofitable"

                    There is if nobody wants to pay the idiotic markup you just demanded.

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 9:35am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disn

                      You're missing the point where they often buy excess stock AT A LOSS to the original retailer/manufacturer.

                      Bullshit. There are things my local dollar stores have been selling for decades at 50¢/unit. That's not surplus, it's manufactured specifically and repeatedly for them.

                      There is if nobody wants to pay the idiotic markup you just demanded.

                      I'm demanding nothing. I marvel that people will drop hundreds of dollars a day to take their kids to Disney World, but they do—in large numbers. When something's rare and desirable, there are always parents willing to buy it for their kids. Lots are willing to buy $60 presents, although you're missing that this is an exageration—it will not literally take a doubling or tripling of sale price to bring a smaller-than-usual disc run out of the red.

                      Disney has never used actual costs to justify their vault strategy, because it's not a valid justification—and, anyway, they've never felt a need to justify it at all.

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

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 11:50am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for

                        "That's not surplus, it's manufactured specifically and repeatedly for them."

                        Some things yes, some things no. Things like batches of DVDs of movies that used to sell full price in major retailers, almost certainly not.

                        "I marvel that people will drop hundreds of dollars a day to take their kids to Disney World, but they do—in large numbers"

                        Yes, including myself this year in fact, travelling halfway across the world to take my niece and nephew there as a once in a lifetime experience. Worth every penny since they're unlikely to get that experience again before adulthood and not something that can be easily replicated at home.

                        That doesn't mean you can sell them a $10 DVD at $60 just because you decided to ask for a ridiculous markup.

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

                    • icon
                      urza9814 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:36am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disn

                      Really? The dollar stores near me mostly carry the same stock year-round. And there are seasonal products that I've only ever seen at that particular chain, but they're been at multiple locations at least four years in a row. So are you telling me the same companies are making the same mistakes and selling the same overstock at a loss month after month, year after year? You'd think they'd eventually lower their production a bit if that was the case.

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

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 12:42am

          Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

          "When you are producing content in batches, like DVDs, once you have sold out, it makes sense to wait for demand to build up before pressing a new batch, as there is a minimum number of sales for the pressing to be profitable."

          Except that was never Disney's deal. There are a number of market calculations available on the cost-benefit of continually making and selling new content which pans uot solidly in favor of consistently churning out new movies...but for that to work they need a clean playing field where they don't need to compete with their own olden goldies for the household budgets.

          And it also allows them to simply remaster their old movies and re-sell them at new price. How many here have five different editions of "Snow White" by now?

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

      • icon
        rangda (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 8:37am

        Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

        "Unless the whole plan is to annoy would-be-paying customers with artificial scarcity, anyway"

        In the era of tape and shiny disc sales, that was exactly the plan. Tell everyone it's going away, get a rush of sales, hold it back for a bit, release a new "special" edition, get another rush of sales.

        But in the era of streaming this seems more like a variant on the underpant gnomes business model:

        1. vault titles to prevent streaming.
        2. profit

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 1:04am

          Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

          "But in the era of streaming this seems more like a variant on the underpant gnomes business model..."

          Not just in the era of streaming. A lot of corporations operate with the underpant gnome business model, but it's pretty telling that major media companies almost always place 99% of their efforts in that particular bracket. They always have.

          It's similarly pretty telling that the reason Netflix ate so much of the market is because they came onto the scene of media without putting ANY stock in the underpant gnome business model, always putting a clear focus on HOW to achieve their profits.

          All too often Disney, Sony, and other major entertainment companies operate from what I can only term a religious belief in marketing schemes relying exclusively on keeping people from simply pressing "ctrl-C".

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 9:38am

          Re: Re: Re: This makes no sense for Disney

          But in the era of streaming this seems more like a variant on the underpant gnomes business model:

          Except that it appears to work. Disney has no shortage of profit, nor of subscribers to their streaming service. Even if everyone hates the vault model, it's a stretch to say it reduces profit. Where's the evidence?

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 7:18am

      Re: This makes no sense for Disney

      "This doesn't make a lick of sense"

      Corporate licencing rarely does.

      From what I understand, Disney had pre-existing agreements for other providers to have the titles that dated to before they planned to launch Disney+. Then, rather than leave money on the table for content such as Home Alone over the launch and Christmas period, they opted to stream them until they had to give up streaming rights and then remove them when they had to. The above may or may not be accurate, but it fits with the short term gain at the expense of the long term that's typical of these things.

      It's utterly idiotic from a consumer point of view, but realistically what do Disney have to really lose here? Nobody's subscribing to Disney+ solely for the titles that left, and when the crunch comes and the market collapses because people only want to subscribe to the same couple of services, Disney+ is likely to have a top spot on that list.

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

    • identicon
      9Blu, 7 Jan 2020 @ 7:47am

      Re: This makes no sense for Disney

      I know for at least some of these films it's due to existing license deals, and the films will return when those deals expire. Disney already talked about it, so I'm surprised this article or the one it's based on didn't mention it.

      'A Disney+ spokesperson confirmed to Gizmodo that, "a small number of titles had left the platform over issues relating to legacy deals. However, all of those titles that have left will return to the service as soon as those licenses expire."'

      https://comicbook.com/2020/01/02/disney-plus-home-alone-sandlot-removed-reveals-why-m ore-were/

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

      • icon
        Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 8:24am

        The answer I was looking for

        Thank you! This makes the most sense as to an explanation! God bless the Techdirt comments section!

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

        • icon
          crade (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 8:39am

          Re: The answer I was looking for

          I love how Disney acts like it's some force of nature that's out of their hands when actually what happened is they chose to sell the exclusive rights to stream these to someone else instead of putting it on their own service they knew was coming.

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

          • identicon
            9Blu, 7 Jan 2020 @ 9:53am

            Re: Re: The answer I was looking for

            These agreements were in place long before Disney decided to roll out their own service. Some were also carried over from the purchase of Fox.

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

            • icon
              crade (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 11:45am

              Re: Re: Re: The answer I was looking for

              Fair enough. I don't know who knew they were going to create their own streaming service when. I still feel like they are playing victim to their own actions whether they decided to do the service and then signed up to a bunch of long term agreements or signed up to a bunch of long term agreements and then decided to do a streaming service.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 5:39pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: The answer I was looking for

                We're talking about an organization that spent years and millions of dollars conflating copyright and trademark law to keep a cartoon from the 1920s out of everyone else's hands.

                Disney's at the point where Katy Perry is - even when they're in the right, I think I'd give myself spinal bifida trying to eke out a modicum of sympathy for them hoisting themselves on their own petard...

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

          • icon
            nerdrage (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 10:09am

            Re: Re: The answer I was looking for

            Well it's out of their hands once they sign on the dotted line.

            Disney should have made the jump to streaming years ago. It's been obvious for years that Netflix would destroy cable and broadcast. But corporations find it hard to shed a business that is making money today just because they know that it's going to crash and burn tomorrow and they need to put those resources towards planning for the future.

            Disney jumped to streaming at pretty much the last possible moment but maybe they planned it that way. They're like a fighter pilot who knows his plane has been hit and is doomed. But it's still gliding along, looking from the outside like it could be salvaged. He'll wait till the last possible moment to eject just so he doesn't look like a panicky coward.

            Disney has shareholders to answer to, and some of those shareholders even now are bitching about how Disney is undermining profitable businesses by plowing resources into this newfangled streaming jazz that cannibalizes cable and broadcast but isn't as profitable per person (and never will be, the days are gone when everyone had to subsidize ESPN with their cable subscription despite half of them not watching sports.)

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 9:02am

      Re: This makes no sense for Disney

      Welcome to the "Disney Digital Vault" where all your favorites go to die for a few years, until Disney can squeeze top dollar out of them again for the next generation...

      It will happen, and they will claim it's to 'help' consumers when we all know it's just trying to create artificial scarcity to increase the marginal profit margin available. Forget that they already recovered their cost 100X over during the initial release and showings, they expect to be able to keep bleeding the customers until they have nothing left to give.

      Don't give these bloodsuckers anything, no matter how 'entertaining' you may think their creations (stolen copyright on most, since they can't be bothered to pay for the things they appropriate, but expect everyone else to pay for their appropriated culture...)

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 12:14pm

      Re: This makes no sense for Disney

      In this case Disney made deals with Netflix a long time ago before they even were considering their own streaming service and they don't want to buy out those contracts because it would be expensive they would rather just wait a year

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

  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 6:39am

    One explanation for the missing movies:

    Disney thought everyone liked Pirates of the Caribbean, so they decided to help everyone become a pirate.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 6:41am

    Went to watch Stranger Tides last night actually, and found it missing. Googled, and I couldn't find it on any streaming service that didn't want you to also pay to rent the movie.

    And we have Amazon Prime, Hulu, and Netflix as well as Disney+.

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

  • identicon
    Jason, 7 Jan 2020 @ 6:41am

    not quite, but close

    "we gave you everything we wanted to give you and you still pirated you ungrateful wretch"

    That's more the actual complaint, I think.

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

  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 7:11am

    Using the Magic Eight Ball to select programming.

    I had a thought the other day, about someone setting up a sort of TV guide type service where one could look up what they wanted to watch and find out how to get that service (maybe someone like IMBD could link to them). The article above shows how difficult it would be to maintain any kind of accurate listing (who would want THAT headache?). Hell, not even the sites providing the streams seem to be able to keep an accurate listing as without any kind of hint about why changes are made there is no predicting what the lists will be tomorrow.

    Storage is so cheap these days, it doesn't seem like technical difficulties would be the issue, even if some property only got one viewing per year, the fact that that property was available might get someone to subscribe to your service. Or many someones. There might be some convoluted scheme involving scarcity that these folks are playing with, but it appears they are going to piss viewers off (with the attendant revenue issues) more than reap benefits from artificial scarcity.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 7:46am

      Re: Using the Magic Eight Ball to select programming.

      There's an app, at least on the iPhone, I would assume Android also called "JustWatch". You can enter the name of whatever you're looking for and it'll show you where you can buy it, rent it, or Stream it. It seems to work pretty good for things I'm entering into it.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 9:23am

      Re: Using the Magic Eight Ball to select programming.

      Would such an app even be legal under current laws?

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

      • icon
        Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 12:11pm

        Re: Re: Using the Magic Eight Ball to select programming.

        Considering that the app leads people to buy, stream or rent, I don't think the copyright holders or licensees even have an incentive to litigate seeing as there's no harm being shown.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 8:29pm

          Re: Re: Re: Using the Magic Eight Ball to select programming.

          Did they ever need an incentive to shoot themselves in the foot and sue someone else for the hospital bills and emotional distress?

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

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 1:21am

          Re: Re: Re: Using the Magic Eight Ball to select programming.

          "Considering that the app leads people to buy, stream or rent, I don't think the copyright holders or licensees even have an incentive to litigate seeing as there's no harm being shown."

          You realize you're talking about the industry which has repeatedly, in the past, spent hundreds of millions to fight phenomena which would have made them money?

          At the end of the day the copyright cult is all about control.

          The closest analogy I can think of is how the catholic church fought tooth and nail to keep bible interpretation in the hands of ordained priests because the core goal was control rather than how many people actually ended up believing in christianity.

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

          • icon
            Samuel Abram (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Using the Magic Eight Ball to select programming

            Great points. I forgot that the MPA and the RIAA are the same type of industries that want to strangle the formats that will then make them money. Me stupid.

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

            • icon
              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 2:41am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Using the Magic Eight Ball to select program

              "Great points. I forgot that the MPA and the RIAA are the same type of industries that want to strangle the formats that will then make them money."

              Not just them, unfortunately. We've all seen, over the years, numerous copyright cult corporations throwing millions of dollars down a black hole in litigation and lobbying to fight off massive opportunities for them. I keep having this vision of a confused redneck running down main street firing a shotgun at the guys running after him screaming "Stand still and take my money!!!" as if he was running from the zombie uprising.

              " Me stupid."

              For forgetting that these corporations - run by mature adults able to tie their own shoelaces - often act as if they were clinically insane or mentally disabled? No. That's not "stupid". :)

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

    • icon
      nerdrage (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 10:19am

      Re: Using the Magic Eight Ball to select programming.

      Try justwatch.com.

      It doesn't subscribe to services for you but it lets you see where everything is.

      What people seem to want is some kind of meta-service, one place to subscribe to stuff. Amazon is building that. You can subscribe to HBO and some other services via Amazon. Of course you'll pay full freight (after teaser deals expire).

      What people really want are customized payment plans so they don't pay full freight to all services at once. For starters, Amazon could set up auto-churn so you can schedule the beginning and end dates of services across all the ones they offer. Same thing any of us can do, but easier.

      The problem is: Amazon has to do deals with Disney, Netflix, Apple etc to be able to offer their services; and has to convince them that automated starting and stopping is in their interest. Which it isn't. The big services know they can get subscribers without offering such deals. They want the opposite, to keep subscribers coming back and not even looking at the competition.

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

  • icon
    crade (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 7:57am

    I think "Amazing Work" is a bit of a stretch.. When it was released after months of beta testing it still couldn't even resume your shows or tell you which episodes you had watched.. Didn't work at all for tons of people, still doesn't work on Linux and worst of all... No Muppet Show..

    "and exclusive programs like The Mandalorian" is maybe less of a stretch but I would say instead "and the exclusive program: The Mandalorian"

    I predicted Disney would screw this up because they overvalue their content and doing something like throwing the doors open so you can watch whatever you want just isn't in their DNA but I did not predict that they would screw up the service itself so badly.. I mean they already had Hulu running for a long time, it's pretty embarrassing I should think.

    Disney also specifically made the claim that they were not going to do the rotating stock thing when promoting the service.

    So anyway stop hoarding The Muppet Show and you will have my 7$

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 9:03am

      It works on Linux now and has for a month at this point.

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

    • identicon
      CharlieBrown, 7 Jan 2020 @ 10:59pm

      Re: Muppets

      I bet there's no Muppets because of all the music involved. I remember the first season on DVD: My favourite song was cut out of my favourite episode of that season. I wasn't happy. Bunch of Muppets.

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

      • icon
        Samuel Abram (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:11am

        Re: Re: Muppets

        Perhaps the same reason Muppet Babies isn't on Disney+ either: there's so much third-party video footage in every episode that it's a licensing nightmare to deal with, so it makes more sense just to leave it off of Streaming Services (and home video entirely).

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

      • icon
        crade (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 11:58am

        Re: Re: Muppets

        If it's cost prohibitive to allow people to see the Muppet show and other beloved shows I certainly wouldn't blame music for it. Having music in shows is nice and creates no problem for releasing anything. If the horrible state of copyright law makes it cost prohibitive to release shows that have music in them it's victim blaming to point the finger at the music.

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 9:38am

    Something something decades screaming about piracy, we think they finally got a glimmer of a hint seeing piracy drop as they made it easier for people to get the content legally....
    They some dipshit said this whole vault thing worked well last time, some other dipshit decided that people would pay to add more streaming services (I mean really, its just like cable!!! They'll pay more for HBO, ShowTime, etc etc WE'LL BE RICH!!!!!!)

    Rather than offer 1 or 2 really good streaming platforms (iTunes?) each of them is going to build their own (UltraViolet now with 17 more websites you have to log into first to verify your access rights) and expect consumers to pay a premium price...

    They aren't very bright are they...

    Hey, this golden egg is awesome.
    But I bet if we cut the goose open, we could get a second golden egg, and we wouldn't have to wait for tomorrow.
    Frankly, I can't see any downsides to this plan, and I suggest we implement it immediately.
    Gentlemen, sharpen your axes.

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

  • identicon
    AlexisR200, 7 Jan 2020 @ 9:48am

    The result of allowing a company to silo in their content.

    Honestly this is bad for the consumer. Disney leads the charge with anticompetitive practices with their refusal to licence their content all while swallowing more companies.

    Honestly Copyright protection is so powerful, cheap and broken that companies might end up getting away with recreating cable channel's BS on the internet and resume their gouging. How long before we also get bombarded with ads on subscription services just like cable?

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

    • icon
      McGyver (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 12:37pm

      Re: The result of allowing a company to silo in their content.

      I pretty much figured that once Netflix became successful and the way was paved for streaming services, everyone would start to mimic the gouging model cable was famous for...
      Why make a reasonable income licensing affordable content when you can hoard everything including old crap and keep it all wing-wangs for yourself?
      Give it a few years and streaming services will all be trashy reality shows and paranormal/Bigfoot/aliens/hunt for lost nazi gold shows and anything remotely worth watching will be locked into a deluxe package.
      The beauty of history is if you miss it the first time, you can experience it all over again when it repeats itself.

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

    • identicon
      bob, 7 Jan 2020 @ 2:05pm

      Re: The result of allowing a company to silo in their content.

      Hulu already does ads at the beginning of some shows, even for paying customers. Unless you pay even more money.

      I don't get the logic, If I'm streaming the content I am not suddenly going to start watching it on cable just because of their dumb unskipable ad.

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

  • icon
    nerdrage (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 10:02am

    just things settling into place

    This is just part of the process of Disney wrangling back their licenses from their licensors.

    http://www.darkhorizons.com/disney-rep-explains-rotating-film-slate/

    Global streaming means no more licensors - why bother with middlemen when you go direct to the customer? But Disney isn't global yet, and the process of getting there will be messy.

    "Eventually the industry needs to work in collaboration to make it easier to subscribe and unsubscribe from numerous services, track which services you're subscribed to, clearly notify users when content licenses expire, and make it easier to search across multiple platforms to find particularly content."

    The industry will work on that collaboration through mergers & acquisitions. Independent corporations don't cooperate with others; they are set up to continually try to kill and eat competitors. Fox and Hulu now cooperate nicely with Disney because Disney killed and ate them.

    More mergers are on the way. Apple is probably going to buy MGM soon and somebody is going to buy ViacomCBS. This whole industry will probably crunch down to four or so global behemoths, so the confusing and annoying range of competitors will become more tolerable.

    As for finding where content is, try this: justwatch.com

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

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 11:36am

    I'm not confused, when it's not on Netflix I go without. Or pirate. I started pirating again last year after 4 years without downloading a single movie/series. Because of this kind of stupidity.

    As for the usual copyright morons around here, I couldn't care less about your rants of how much of a criminal I am when the big copyright holders engage in all sorts of fuckery like this.

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

  • icon
    tom (profile), 7 Jan 2020 @ 3:19pm

    Another example of if you can't touch the media or device storing your data, the data isn't yours and may vanish with no notice or recourse.

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

  • identicon
    Agammamon, 7 Jan 2020 @ 3:21pm

    an ironic outcome to a decade spent trying to migrate pirates to legit streaming alternatives.

    A decade spent successfully migrating pirates to legit streaming alternatives.

    And they're going to throw it all away because some mid-level execs need bullet points for their evaluations so they come up with these 'great ideas' for squeezing a tiny little bit more short-term income.

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

  • identicon
    lol, 7 Jan 2020 @ 6:28pm

    hrmm

    .........want to pirate it all get bittorrent

    that ends the streaming wars

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 8:21pm

    Disney regularly does this

    They bury titles in a peat bog for 10 - 20 years to drum up "demand" for a "re-release". That should work even better in an age of digital streaming media, no?

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

  • identicon
    Smartassicus the Roman, 7 Jan 2020 @ 10:39pm

    Waitaminnit

    Stop playing their damned games and go to putlocker.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2020 @ 11:22pm

    I stopped pirating 4 years ago when I subscribed to NetFlix. I thought then that was all I ever needed

    This week i noticed that a series I was (occasionally) watching was removed from site

    As the cartoon accurately says . . . . "hello old friend"

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

  • icon
    tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 4:14am

    Finding legal content is not the problem

    It is responsibility of end users to find authorised vendor of copyrighted works, and paying the requested amount of money before consuming the work.

    This basically means that end users need to do "more work" to find legal alternative to find the real author of the copyrighted work. Giving your money to scammers who have large pirate collections is not acceptable, instead you need to read the copyright notices, and find authorised vendor who can provide you with legal copy of the material.

    Proper authors cannot reach all the users on the planet. There's always pirate vendors available too, and author's works can often be lost in the flood of pirate material. But this is why it's every end user's responsibility to find authorised vendor for all the consumed material and reject the scammers who provide pirate or counterfeit products.

    Depending on the amount of scammers in the market, the end user's job of finding needle in the heystack can be slightly more difficult.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 4:44am

      Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

      Since when has Disney paid the authors and actors their fair share of the profits, rather than using Hollywood accounting to keep the money themselves? In some respects, the legacy publishing industry is one of the oldest collection of scammers going.

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

      • icon
        tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 4:50am

        Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

        Since when has Disney paid the authors and actors their fair share of the profits,

        obviously end users can evaluate themselves who is trustworthy entities in the market. If end user accidentally chooses a scammer to obtain the work from, the end user takes a risk of copyright infringement lawsuit. So the choices need to be made carefully to pass the money to the right vendor.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 5:19am

          Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

          How to miss the point totally. Buying from Disney is not Infringement, but neither does it do much to put money in the pockets of the actual creators.

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

          • icon
            tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 5:38am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

            Buying from Disney is not Infringement, but neither does it do much to put money in the pockets of the actual creators.

            Well, if your author can reach that area of the world by distributing their permissions to the chosen vendors, then author is getting his fair share of the profits.

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 5:51am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

              "then author is getting his fair share of the profits"

              The fantasy world you live in where studios ripping off artists isn't famous enough to have its own popular nickname is interesting. However, can you keep the conversation to this reality?

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 4:46am

      Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

      Our favourite moron has returned! Made any useless pieces of software nobody can work out how to use over the holidays? Any "perfect" pieces of software that have no reason for anybody to even consider paying for them?

      "Giving your money to scammers who have large pirate collections is not acceptable"

      Nobody's doing that, numbnuts. If they can't find a convenient way to pay for the products they're trying to get hold of, they'll get it for free.

      "Proper authors cannot reach all the users on the planet"

      I love the fact that this is your comment in a conversation about bloody Disney.

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

      • icon
        tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 5:13am

        Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

        Made any useless pieces of software nobody can work out how to use over the holidays?

        I know it's harsh to compete against vendors like disney, when the competition has global distribution network worth billions of dollars to distribute their products, and I need to rely on random messages in techdirt.

        Any "perfect" pieces of software that have no reason for anybody to even consider paying for them?

        It's currently not possible to pay for them, given that I haven't implemented monetising feature. I considered the actually useful product to be more important than trying to fetch money from end users. (well, if you find my itch.io page, it's possible to send money)

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:04am

          Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

          "I know it's harsh to compete against vendors like disney"

          They are not a competitor to your product, yet you still come in here to regularly complain about how you've failed.

          "I need to rely on random messages in techdirt."

          Well, you don't but at least you've stopped spending huge amounts of money on a type of marketing that would never work in a million years.

          "It's currently not possible to pay for them"

          Then you lose nothing if someone decided to pirate them.

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

          • icon
            tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:10am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

            Then you lose nothing if someone decided to pirate them.

            This probably isn't true. And I have copy-protection provided by the web technologies/web servers available, so pirating might not be possibe anyway.

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

            • icon
              Samuel Abram (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:23am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

              I have copy-protection provided by the web technologies/web servers available, so pirating might not be possibe anyway.

              Every single piece of content available is piratable due to The Analog Hole. There's never been a pirate-proof DRM mechanism. Never has, never will be. DRM failing is as inevitable as death and taxes.

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

              • icon
                tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:29am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

                Every single piece of content available is piratable due to The Analog Hole.

                My content is interactive, with user input required. Good luck with your analog hole and recording equipment. When interactive content is available, it provides more value than a mere recording.

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

                • icon
                  Samuel Abram (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:45am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the pro

                  My content is interactive, with user input required. Good luck with your analog hole and recording equipment. When interactive content is available, it provides more value than a mere recording.

                  Only if it has an online component with multiplayer capabilities and servers from the developers themselves can you be kicked off if you break the DRM. Still, the DRM could be broken.

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

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 8:31am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the

                    He's getting himself confused again. He's rambling about his magic yet unmarketable software, not realising that everybody else is talking about the movies that the article is about.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 7:55am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the pro

                  "When interactive content is available"

                  There are accompanying attack vectors.

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 8:28am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

              "This probably isn't true"

              State how you lose money from a product that is not for sale.

              "I have copy-protection"

              Which is not the magic rock you think it is.

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

              • icon
                tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 2:37pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

                State how you lose money from a product that is not for sale.

                flood of pirated products replaces shelfspace from legal products. End users never bother to look at my product since they're busy watching pirated hollywood movies, and thus I need to compete not only against local content, but also a flood of pirated high quality global content.

                this happens also when someone elses product is pirated, even though you're only allowed to sue for copyright infringement of your own product.

                Basically there isn't any way to stop the flood of someone elses pirated products, because the system doesnt let us sue if our own product isn't the product being pirated.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 2:52pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the pro

                  Why don't you just admit your product is not competitive, and figure out why and fix it. Piracy is not the problem you think it is, and competition is the name of the game in a free market.

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

                  • icon
                    tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 3:21pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the

                    admit your product is not competitive, and figure out why and fix

                    See the failure list. How do you fix the problem that you don't have 2 million content items available in your web page?

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:44pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not

                      Last I checked Disney+ doesn't have 2 million content items available. Hell, the article is about them having even fewer items available. Yet it's touted as an answer to Netflix.

                      You figure the rest out, I'm not doing your Meshpage homework for you.

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

                      • icon
                        tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 7:39pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is

                        Last I checked Disney+ doesn't have 2 million content items available.

                        They keep claiming disney is outdated for this exact reason. Other players in the market have "better" selection of home videos.

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

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 8:05pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal conten

                          Other players in the market have "better" selection of home videos.

                          Then name them. Netflix doesn't have "2 million". Again, I'm not doing your damn homework for you.

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

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 5:37am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal conten

                          "Other players in the market have "better" selection of home videos."

                          Home videos?

                          Maybe the reason you're so deluded is that you think that VHS is the current leading format? Hmmm...

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

                • icon
                  bhull242 (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 10:02pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the pro

                  As we’ve told you on multiple occasions, that’s not how competition works. Competition is “like against like”. Yes, they all have to compete for your time, but any attempts to block an unlike “competitor” is unlikely—at best—to have any observable impact whatsoever on your success because there is unlikely to be any substantial overlap between those who pirate movies and those who would have any interest in your product or anything like your product.

                  Also, of course you can’t sue over copyright infringement of someone else’s work. That’s copyright 101. No legal system has ever allowed such a thing. The legal system is flawed, but only allowing people to sue over copyright infringement of works that they themselves own the copyright to is not one of them, and to allow otherwise goes against the most basic principles of copyright and legal standing and would be a perversion of justice and equity.

                  Finally, of course you’ll have to compete against high-quality global content, but not if it’s in a completely unrelated market. Disney movies—pirates or otherwise—do not compete with your product at all. Let’s pretend that the general copyright maximalist claim—that every pirated copy is a lost sale—is valid. That would necessarily mean that every copy that gets pirated would otherwise make money for the copyright-holder. So if you successfully end piracy in any manner, those people pirating Disney movies won’t go for your product; they’ll spend their time with the legitimate copies instead, almost certainly spending the same time on Disney movies whether they pirate them or get them legitimately. (Of course, this is not the case, but it’s still the case that someone who would otherwise pirate a Disney movie is more likely to legitimately purchase or stream that movie or pirate or legitimately watch some other movie instead if prevented rather than look up your software.)

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

                  • icon
                    tp (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 11:00pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the

                    Disney movies—pirates or otherwise—do not compete with your product at all.

                    This isn't true. When disney does awesome animations, it places some strict expectations of how good quality animation systems should implement. When children are watching nice animations, and when my tool that is designed for children to use, cannot fullfil the quality requirements they see in disney movies, the tool might be rejected by the children. In this way, disney movies are substituting the market for my animation tool.

                    If these are legal copies of disney movies, this all is valid competition. Then it just depends whether children consider good quality animation more important than the ability to create their own animated films.

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

                    • icon
                      bhull242 (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 1:47am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not

                      You still aren’t competing with Disney movies. At most, you’re competing with Disney’s animation tools. And even then it’s not true competition because Disney doesn’t sell its animation tools, like, at all, and all animation is done using proprietary tools. So it’s still not the same market. Competition is not the only way different companies/products affect each other; it’s just the largest one.

                      Also, your success doesn’t depend on whether or not the competition is “valid” or not. If all the people who pirated Disney movies started buying them legitimately instead, that would have precisely 0 effect on your bottom line, even by your argument. As far as your product is concerned, whether the competition is pirated or not is irrelevant for you. You will see no actual changes to your success if every pirate stopped pirating Disney movies. There are legal and moral differences, to be sure, but none of that actually affects you from a practical perspective.

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

                      • icon
                        tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 2:13am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is

                        As far as your product is concerned, whether the competition is pirated or not is irrelevant for you.

                        This isnt true. Legal software distribution has overheads like money collection and shelf placement which isn't an issue with pirated software. Also people consider more carefully whether they actually need the product, whenever they need to part with their money to obtain the product. Piracy messes up with this equation badly, because it fills the demand gaps without compensating the authors. It's only those demand gaps in the marketplace which makes people buy the product with their own money.

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2020 @ 6:28am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not

                      I have news for you, a child could not compete with Pixar when it come to animation, even with the same tools, as those animations are created by teams of people, as it can take months to model and animate a single character.

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

                      • icon
                        tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 6:43am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is

                        I have news for you, a child could not compete with Pixar when it come to animation,

                        That's no reason to deny the opportunity to let the children create animations.

                        And we can provide good enough tooling that the children's work will be as good as what pixar can do. It's just a small challenge to genius that we are. Just need to keep costs down so that it is affordable to the children and their families.

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

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 7:20am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal conten

                          "That's no reason to deny the opportunity to let the children create animations."

                          Nobody's denying them any opportunity. It's just that you're uninformed enough to think that the only things standing between the average 8 year old and the teams of hundreds or thousands who work on the average Pixar movie is the age range of the interface.

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

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2020 @ 7:26am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal conten

                          How to miss the point, it not the software that is the problem, but rather the number of person hours needed to create a 3d models, rigged ready for animation. About the only way of doing that is to provide a library of pre-rigged characters, ready for using in an animated movie. After that, there is the need for writing the script, working up a storyboard, plotting character movements etc.

                          The time investment for even a short animation is more than most children have the patience for, and for the few children that do, there is Blender along with lots of video tutorials, and a very supportive community to help the newcomer.

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

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 8:07am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal co

                            In other words: the only thing he's even considering is the time rendering the end product. In order to make his point he has to both ignore the other 99% of work that goes into an animation and pretend that the work of the hundreds or thousands of people who work on a Pixar movie can easily be replaced by a small child so long as his software is written the right way.

                            Whatever he needs to tell himself, I suppose...

                            "there is Blender"

                            Oh, that's come up before. He just whined about how he doesn't like their user interface (while coming up with bad excuses as to why that product has such a long history and strong community compared to the nothing on his platform).

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

                      • icon
                        tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 7:16am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is

                        as those animations are created by teams of people, as it can take months to model and animate a single character.

                        This is mainly because pixar made mistakes when buiding their animation frameworks. For example, we solve those problems using the following techniques:
                        1) input data amount needs to be small enough that they can be inputted using computer keyboard
                        2) there must be feature called "composability", i.e. when you combine different features, all combinations need to work automatically, without any extra input data.
                        3) there must be short descriptive names for all features
                        4) there must be large number of features, but they all need to follow common pattern that allows their usage via simple controls
                        5) operations performed on the data must be fast enough that ordinary computer hardware can handle the operations with sufficient performance, so that render farms are not required

                        With these techniques, we expect that our system can outperform pixar's tooling when children are using the system.

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

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 7:23am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal conten

                          "operations performed on the data must be fast enough that ordinary computer hardware can handle the operations"

                          Oh, it's that simple? All you need to do is create software that manages to outperform the ability of the hardware it's running on? Why didn't anyone else think of that!

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

                          • icon
                            tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 7:28am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal co

                            All you need to do is create software that manages to outperform the ability of the hardware it's running on?

                            No need to do anything like that. You just drop all the heavy operations that take too long time to execute on standard ibm pc's...

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

                            • icon
                              bhull242 (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 7:33am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding lega

                              Why IBM PCs?

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

                              • icon
                                tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 7:41am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding

                                Why IBM PCs?

                                These tablets or phones do not have necessary things for the tooling to work, i.e. mouse and keyboard.

                                Basically it's a tradeoff because some children do not have access to pc's, when their schools are using tablets. But availability of GPU's, mouse, keyboard and other inputting devices are just superior in pc hardware.

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

                              • icon
                                PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 8:09am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding

                                "Why IBM PCs?"

                                Because the last time he stepped out to try and understand the world around him, IBM were still the dominant home PC manufacturer?

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

                                • icon
                                  bhull242 (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 1:56pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Find

                                  That’s what I was thinking. Does anyone at home still use IBM PCs? He got hung up on the “PCs”, when I was questioning the use of “IBM”.

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

                            • icon
                              PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 8:08am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding lega

                              "You just drop all the heavy operations that take too long time to execute on standard ibm pc's..."

                              I'm intrigued. How do you render an animation after you've dropped all the heavy rendering work?

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

                              • icon
                                tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 9:35am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding

                                How do you render an animation after you've dropped all the heavy rendering work?

                                It uses opengl. Basically you first have url to .obj, .stl, .mtl, .glb files coming from external sources, and then it gets loaded to a mesh. Then mesh can be rendered using any number of materials. Then movement is handled using opengl matrix stack. Then window is added which handles the event loop with all the key bindings and mouse positions etc. Basically it uses the GPU to blit triangles to the screen. That operation is fast even on crappy laptops.

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

                                • icon
                                  PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:13am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Find

                                  That's an interesting collection of buzzwords, but it still doesn't explain how you think you're going to get the performance of a dedicated render farm in a crappy laptop, unless you're just depending on magically outperforming the hardware. Which, I know is a wet dream of some software people, but at some point you do have to accept that the hardware is at least as important as your code when performing hardware-intensive processes.

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

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2020 @ 8:22am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal conten

                          It looks like you have fallen into the trap that many software developers have fallen into, and that is a belief that an Interface can replace the learning of relevant skills and practices needed to achieve a creative goal. There is even a minimum level of knowledge needed to be able to understand what the items in an interface actually do, and how they are used to solve a problem.

                          For example, how many kids would know what composability means, and how do you make that accessible to them?

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

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 8:47am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal co

                            Exactly. The reasons why these interfaces might be too complex for a small child is frankly because adult professionals in the animation field will wish to make choices that a small child would not. He seems to think that all he needs to do is lay the crayons out in the right order, but hasn't considered what happens when the budding artist wishes to use something other than crayons.

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

                          • icon
                            tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 10:41am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal co

                            how many kids would know what composability means, and how do you make that accessible to them?

                            Composability is the same trick than what lego blocks are using. Tons of children know early in their lives how lego blocks can be combined to various different shapes.

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

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:04pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding lega

                              So once again, you demonstrate that your software aimed at kids continues to be terrible at teaching them how to use it, or motivating them to even try, and you still want a mansion for being shit at your job.

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

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 5:36am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the pro

                  "flood of pirated products replaces shelfspace from legal products"

                  You're online. Why is there "shelf space"

                  "End users never bother to look at my product since they're busy watching pirated hollywood movies"

                  Sure. It's not because your products in a completely different marketplace are shit and you can't market worth a damn. It must be because people are pirating movies.

                  Your weak excuses for your failure are always amusing. I'll be over here >> consuming my legally purchased content while I laugh at your delusions.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:47pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

            He's already admitted once (in a spirited defense of Malibu Media) that he's a professional troll. It's not hard to imagine that he legitimately thinks that pandering to a website, which antidirt regularly screams as having a dying reader base, is a legitimate marketing strategy that he thinks the government should reward him with effort points. Because if he tried this in actual programming forums he'd have his ass laughed all the way to the North Pole...

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

    • identicon
      Rocky, 8 Jan 2020 @ 5:48am

      Ass backwards...

      I would have thought that if you have a product that people are interested in you would make it easy for them get it.

      If a customers has to go out of their way to find something, they wont. It's simple basic economics and human nature that people will go for the easier and cheaper route almost every time. Those who don't understand this will blame everyone else for their poor business-decisions, and if they have enough power and money they will lobby for laws that forces customers to buy their products in one way or another.

      I wouldn't put a cent into a company that embraces your view of how customers should act.

      Also, can you define proper author? And by that, I also think you need to define what an improper author is.

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

      • icon
        tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:02am

        Re: Ass backwards...

        I would have thought that if you have a product that people are interested in you would make it easy for them get it.

        It might not be possible to create both excellent product that people want to consume and also awesome distribution network that reaches millions of users around the globe. Only very few vendors have resources to build something big like that. Everyone else needs to limit the scope of market that they can handle.

        Thus if you want good product and good reachability, you might find that there doesnt exist vendors that can implement both of them.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:25am

          Re: Re: Ass backwards...

          It might not be possible to create both excellent product that people want to consume and also awesome distribution network that reaches millions of users around the globe.

          You do not get the power of the Internet for distribution, and just how fast word will spread about an awesome product.

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

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 2:40am

          Re: Re: Ass backwards...

          "It might not be possible to create both excellent product that people want to consume and also awesome distribution network that reaches millions of users around the globe."

          Oh, stop. You realize that in factual reality we have websites which exploded from a single page showing silly cat pictures to a network with dozens of employees within a year all thanks to the internet being really great at marketing anything a sufficient amount of people find interesting?

          If you've put your product online and it still isn't popular enough to instantly grow you a fan base sufficient to carry you then your problem is that your product isn't a competitive offer. End of story.

          You are essentially putting the blame on invisible fairies cursing you for your lack of business success.

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

          • icon
            tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 10:19am

            Re: Re: Re: Ass backwards...

            we have websites which exploded from a single page showing silly cat pictures to a network with dozens of employees within a year

            We also have 2 billion other websites that didn't succeed in making a dent to the user population.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2020 @ 10:40am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Ass backwards...

              That the way it goes with any form of creative work, a few works gain traction and explode, somewhat more get enough of a fanbase to allow the creator to go full time with their creativity, and the rest will never be anything more than a hobby. That said, most authors who obtained a publishing contract had to keep the day job, and most musicians have made more from live performances that any record contract, while most actors are amateurs performing in local venues.

              Working a day job to support ones creativity is the norm, and getting rich from it is a lottery win.

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:16am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Ass backwards...

              "We also have 2 billion other websites that didn't succeed in making a dent to the user population."

              Yes, so you are not alone in your failure to reach an audience. So what?

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

            • icon
              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 16 Jan 2020 @ 7:27am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Ass backwards...

              "We also have 2 billion other websites that didn't succeed in making a dent to the user population."

              Welcome to how the real world has always worked, in every area of the market.

              You want to be an artist, successful brain surgeon, nobel prize winner, astronaut, etc? Your odds are pretty slim and it's guaranteed you'll have to work ten times as hard as anyone else with a high risk of still ending up doing a desk job in an office somewhere.

              You want to be an office clerk? Congratulations, odds are very good you get to be one.

              Many are Called. Few are Chosen. This is the way success has always worked.

              The copyright cult has been trying to sell the view that mediocrity has market value. That the mediocre artist doesn't have to take a desk job or flip burgers. That you don't need a great deal of both luck and genius to make it big with a new invention.
              But that's not how the world works and it never did. The existence of "piracy" only serves to reveal that truth.

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

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 5:31am

          Re: Re: Ass backwards...

          I’ve pointed this out before, but itch.io is a vendor that has good reachability.

          Also, Netflix, Amazon, and Steam all offer great products and great reachability.

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

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 5:25am

      Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

      "It is responsibility of end users to find authorised vendor of copyrighted works, and paying the requested amount of money before consuming the work."

      ...and since the point of being an online consumer is to avoid doing the grunt work yourself to begin with, we're right back at square one again. In case you're wondering that would be a lot of years ago when the music industry started screaming in outrage over the lazy consumers making swaptapes rather than go out and buy a dozen albums because they liked a single song on each of them.

      "This basically means that end users need to do "more work" to find legal alternative..."

      ...or save themselves a lot of hassle by firing up the VPN and torrent client and get everything they wanted instantly. See how that goes?

      "There's always pirate vendors available too, and author's works can often be lost in the flood of pirate material."

      In fact, whatever the end user desires can most often be found in one and the same convenient location without either having to pay or getting scammed. Which, incidentally, is why scammers trying to "sell" copies of licensed material have always been a fringe market - 99% of the pirates just go directly to their chosen torrent site instead.

      "But this is why it's every end user's responsibility to find authorised vendor for all the consumed material and reject the scammers who provide pirate or counterfeit products."

      According to the copyright cult, yes. Most pirates carefully consider the fact that copies of information aren't scarcity items and then heartily reject the bullshit of Queen Anne's Statutes. Copyright was a shit idea back in the 13th century when it was the catholic church using it to maintain narrative control and it is still a shit idea today.

      In an era where it is possible to own a computer and have a mass communications network available, it is all up to the authors and gatekeepers to build platforms which attract the customer. That hasn't changed since the days of the mom-and-pop store.

      The end consumer, frankly, doesn't have any responsibility to find the thousands of outlets which may or may not carry what he wants. All he has to do is to make the judgment whether he is sufficiently interested in <whatever> to waste hours and days looking for it...
      ...or whether it can all be solved within fifteen minutes of firing up the VPN and uTorrent client.

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

      • icon
        tp (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 5:43am

        Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

        can most often be found in one and the same convenient location without either having to pay

        This is a major failure in your part. One location cannot provide large amount of content. Copyright laws require license negotiations before offering the product to the public, and any single location cannot do thousands of license negotiations and obtain necessary funds to properly license large amount of content. Creating content is expensive enough operation that the cost needs to be divided to large number of shopping locations. Thus single centralized location that contains all the content is not possible under copyright laws.

        Only pirates that are not paying authors at all can do centralized location. The system is such that the authors can fetch their compensation in a single 300k cenralized money block simply by sueing the pirates.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2020 @ 6:12am

          Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

          One location cannot provide large amount of content. Copyright laws require license negotiations before offering the product to the public,

          Tell that to the Libraries of the world, and see what response you get. Note also, with physical copies, shops do not negotiate licenses, they just order the content they think they can sell. Further a site may not be a copyright holder, and simply offer a distribution service, like YouTube does, and that also eliminates complex license negotiations.

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

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 10:20pm

          Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

          One location cannot provide large amount of content. […] any single location cannot do thousands of license negotiations and obtain necessary funds to properly license large amount of content. […] Thus single centralized location that contains all the content is not possible under copyright laws.

          Only pirates that are not paying authors at all can do centralized location.

          The existence of Google, Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, Steam, GOG, Hulu, Amazon Prime, DeviantArt, Google Books, etc., not to mention libraries (as in brick-and-mortar libraries or virtual libraries), proves you wrong. They can and do exist without piracy. You give no evidence to disprove that from copyright law itself. And companies like Google, Netflix, and Amazon do have more than enough funds to negotiate thousands of licenses.

          Copyright laws require license negotiations before offering the product to the public…

          Not if it’s a physical copy, fair use, in the public domain, the copyright is also owned by the distributor (like how Valve owns Portal and distributes it on its own platform), uses a nonnegotiable standard contract for distribution, or uses a license like Creative Commons. Also, libraries generally don’t have to negotiate any licenses at all. And again, that fact wouldn’t make it completely impossible to do, and it’s done all the time.

          Creating content is expensive enough operation that the cost needs to be divided to large number of shopping locations.

          You’re misunderstanding something here. The creator may license their creation(s) to a large number of distributors, but that doesn’t prevent the existence of a single location that has a large number of copyrighted works from multiple creators available legitimately. Distribution rights are rarely licensed exclusively to a single licensee.

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

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 2:57am

          Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

          "This is a major failure in your part. One location cannot provide large amount of content. Copyright laws require license negotiations before offering the product to the public, and any single location cannot do thousands of license negotiations and obtain necessary funds to properly license large amount of content."

          Let me introduce you to any torrent index page. Like it or not the reality that you need to address is that the user convenience you must meet to remain competitive IS going to match up against the various pirate index pages and the increasingly popular DHT-driven alternatives.

          If copyright law presents such a barrier that you can't gather everything the consumer wants in one place, then piracy remains the answer.

          "Thus single centralized location that contains all the content is not possible under copyright laws."

          Then we are facing the current and past issue of copyright law still screwing the consumer, the copyright holders, and the authors alike because the result will be what the cartoon in the OP so clearly shows. We've known how this works for about 20 years and until humans stop being human that's how it will continue to work.

          "The system is such that the authors can fetch their compensation in a single 300k cenralized money block simply by sueing the pirates."

          Something they more or less stopped trying to do in the last twenty years because they found that the costs of doing that were massive and resulted in no gain and at most a few embarrassing lawsuits aimed at senior citizens, dead people, and laser printers.

          Now, in the real world where cause and effects apply rather than the intricacies of if-pigs-had-wings legislative theory you will, in reality, face the unassailable fact that unless corporations get their shit together to the point where they CAN get everything the consumer wants on one page, the main distributor of media will once again be the venerable pirate bay and it's successors.

          While we're at it, I should point out that today you don't even need the index page, since quite a lot of torrent clients can now establish the network and search function without any single point of failure involved at all.

          So you can't, in reality, sue the pirates. Even when back in the day the MPAA and RIAA burned money like mad on lawsuits it was still given that a pirate was less likely to get sued than being hit by lightning. It isn't even a method of intimidation anymore. Just a loss leader and bad PR.

          Nor can you sue the intermediates since, with clients like tribler, they aren't in the position to know what has been transmitted, between which people, or be able to block what looks like an encrypted webpage request to an unknown addressee.

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

          • icon
            tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 3:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

            Nor can you sue the intermediates since, with clients like tribler, they aren't in the position to know what has been transmitted,

            It's very simple to sue the people. You launch the client, watch these pirate product names appear to the screen, you store the screenshot of the pirate products for courts to examine, and once you have the evidence stored, you can start procedings against the authors of the client and maintainers of the support infrastructure that allows this.

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

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 5:23am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

              IP addresses aren’t people, and clients don’t track anything else for stuff like that. Pirate sites don’t usually sell pirated content or track users or anything. That’d be stupid.

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

              • icon
                tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 6:13am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

                IP addresses aren’t people, and clients don’t track anything else for stuff like that.

                usually the name of the author of the client software is well known, even if they have taken steps to hide the person's identity. ISP's are also tracking people who setup servers etc.

                Pirate sites don’t usually sell pirated content or track users or anything.

                Usually the users are not the right target for copyright infringement lawsuit. The lawsuit ought to be done to the technology providers that enable the infringing activity, and maintainers of piracy servers etc. While they will just move the servers to different country and hide their tracks, the whack a mole game can be played endlessly.

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

                • icon
                  bhull242 (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 6:51am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the pro

                  The client is only liable if they know about specific cases of infringement and do nothing about them. The evidence you’re suggesting to collect wouldn’t be enough proof. They’d have to have specific knowledge of infringement and then fail to act.

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

                  • icon
                    tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 7:26am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the

                    The client is only liable if they know about specific cases of infringement and do nothing about them.

                    Whoever builds a client that is able to display pirated content in the software's user interface is automatically liable for any copyright infringements. It is enough that the user interface has ability to display such content.

                    This doesnt require knowledge of any instances of infringement. Software authors need to build enough safety features to prevent copyright infringement happening using the software.

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

                    • icon
                      bhull242 (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 7:42am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not

                      I’ve asked you this before, but show me the part of copyright law that mandates this. Intermediary liability has a “knowledge” requirement. (Unless the intermediary explicitly solicits or promotes infringement or it is incapable of any substantial noninfringing use, but neither of those are applicable to this situation.) No safety measures are mandated by copyright law. I’ve already explained this in another thread (with evidence) and you were unable to refute my claims. I’m not going to get into this again in this thread.

                      The fact is that your claims about liability for copyright infringement aren’t supported by the law.

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

                      • icon
                        tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 5:01am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is

                        but show me the part of copyright law that mandates this.

                        Copyright law explicitly has sections about DISPLAY, PERFORM, DISTIBUTE operations which are marked explicitly as copyright owner's exclusive operations.

                        This "DISPLAY" part is what I'm talking about, i.e. when pirated products are being displayed in your product catalog etc, then you're liable for copyright damages because of violation to the DISPLAY bit.

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

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:08pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal conten

                          And you've been explained to, time and time again, why that is a shit idea. It'd mean that television manufacturers were liable for lawsuits because someone played a pirate cassette tape.

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

                          • icon
                            tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:18pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal co

                            It'd mean that television manufacturers were liable for lawsuits because someone played a pirate cassette tape.

                            How does this "someone" have access to pirated material if they all are law-abiding citizens? Obviously if you buy a television set and you can watch pirated movie-streams from the tv's menus, obviously the tv manufacturer will be sued.

                            either way tv's menus having pirated material is clear example of this DISPLAY bit being broken.

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

                            • icon
                              bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:33pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding lega

                              If you have a device and a compatible cord that lets the device connect to a TV, and you have a TV that can accept signals from that cord, then the TV will accept literally any signal the device sends to it over that cord. Furthermore, in most cases, neither the device nor the cord are manufactured or designed by the same people as the TV (especially since the ports that connect to the TV are pretty standardized but the other end isn’t). The TV doesn’t know the difference between pirated content and unpirated content. It can’t even tell the difference between an optical disc, a cable box, a satellite receiver, a laptop, a PC, and a video game console. TVs just display whatever images are sent to them.

                              And for the record, a pirated cassette copy can be made completely without the help of a TV.

                              This isn’t about the TV having pirated content built-in. It’s about a user using the TV to watch pirated content from an outside source, like a videocassette player.

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

                              • icon
                                tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:40pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding

                                It can’t even tell the difference between an optical disc, a cable box, a satellite receiver, a laptop, a PC, and a video game console.

                                you can just sue one of the manufacturers of these devices, if those are sending pirated content to your tv.

                                step1: identify the source of pirated material
                                step2: sue the technology providers
                                step3: collect ransom money
                                step4: laugh all the way to the bank

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

                                • icon
                                  bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:54pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Find

                                  Well, first of all, unless you own the copyright to the original, you don’t have standing.

                                  Second, it’s not the technology’s fault that someone used it in an unlawful manner. So long as it has substantial lawful uses, the technology providers have no liability whatsoever unless they explicitly encourage or solicit copyright infringement.

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

                                  • icon
                                    tp (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 12:15am

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

                                    unless you own the copyright to the original, you don’t have standing.

                                    While you cannot sue for copyright infringement, pirate vendors can be sued for unfair competition. Using illegal practises (like copyright infringement) to compete in the marketplace and replace legal vendors is clear basis for unfair competition claim.

                                    the technology providers have no liability

                                    If we just frame this as product safety issue, companies cannot dismiss damage claims where product is so unsafe to use that it makes tv's show pirated content (which is known to be illegal to dislpay on your tv)

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

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:32am

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

                                      While you cannot sue for copyright infringement, pirate vendors can be sued for unfair competition

                                      Except that 1. that's not a legal statute, and 2. Thanks to the efforts of copyright enforcers like Strike 3 Holdings, judges have now ruled that you actually need to own the copyright to something before you can sue for it. So nice job fucking up your own meal ticket, genius.

                                      If we just frame this as product safety issue, companies cannot dismiss damage claims where product is so unsafe to use that it makes tv's show pirated content

                                      This might have worked... if copyright infringement had anything to do with product safety. Displaying possibly pirated material is not a safety violation, because if it did TV and computer screens would flat out not exist.

                                      The malware angle is also funny as hell each time you guys try it because it suggests that all pirated software is out to malware your stuff, when it makes no fucking sense for a pirate distributor to bundle their less legitimate software with things that make it harder for users to use... On the other hand, plenty of games and software, purchased legitimately, often come bundled with antipiracy measures that fuck up the user's system like the Sony rootkit, so the way things are now you're more likely to get a product safety issue from the legal product instead of the pirated one. Again, nice going, genius.

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

                                      • icon
                                        tp (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 11:18pm

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

                                        Displaying possibly pirated material is not a safety violation

                                        opening liability of hundreds of thousands of dollars isnt a product safety issue?

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

                                    • icon
                                      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:37am

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

                                      "If we just frame this as product safety issue, companies cannot dismiss damage claims where product is so unsafe to use that it makes tv's show pirated content (which is known to be illegal to dislpay on your tv)"

                                      You truly need to look up the reason WHY none of the thousands of lawyers employed by the copyright cult has suggested this in modern times.

                                      The answer is that the supreme court has multiple times handed down extremely clear-cut precedents and rulings which allow both the TV and VCR to exist - and by direct analogy, any other technology capable of copying data.

                                      So none of your suggestions work, in a legal case, which is just fine because trying to implement any of them would render it impossible to manufacture cars, power tools, and crowbars.

                                      You've also delivered an argument which would make ANY gun manufacturer illegal. I do so hope the copyright cult eventually tries to follow your suggestion. The NRA isn't as nice as us pirates.

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

                                • icon
                                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:34am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Find

                                  "you can just sue one of the manufacturers of these devices, if those are sending pirated content to your tv."

                                  It has been tried. SCOTUS said "HELL NO!".

                                  Which is why the VCR is still perfectly legal, along with any other dual use technology intended to copy data.

                                  This is the way your hypothesis looks, in reality;

                                  step1: identify the source of pirated material
                                  step2: sue the technology providers
                                  step 3: have the lawyers quote multiple supreme court decisions and the judge toss your case out of court
                                  step 4: end up with a solid loss and still having to pay your lawyers.

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

                        • icon
                          bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:56pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal conten

                          The display part has a knowledge requirement. Again, we’ve been over this.

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

                        • icon
                          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:29am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal conten

                          "This "DISPLAY" part is what I'm talking about, i.e. when pirated products are being displayed in your product catalog etc, then you're liable for copyright damages because of violation to the DISPLAY bit."

                          ...which doesn't even, by law, cover torrent index pages - especially not the ones restricting themselves to magnet links. Let alone clients.

                          It would cover an online retailer if they had pirated products in their showcase window and it sunk Kazaa since it expressly used piracy as advertising for it's client.

                          Since no one is dumb enough to do the equivalent of putting up ads equivalent to "Screwdrivers and hammers for all your burglary needs" these days the statute you quote doesn't apply.

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2020 @ 7:56am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not

                      Whoever builds a client that is able to display pirated content in the software's user interface is automatically liable for any copyright infringements.

                      Are you saying that every application that can display images, texts, movies and/or play sounds can be held liable for infringement, because distinguishing between licensed and infringing content on the basis of file type, content or source is not possible.

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

                      • icon
                        tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 8:19am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is

                        Are you saying that every application that can display images, texts, movies and/or play sounds can be held liable for infringement

                        In principle all applications should limit the content in such way that only licensed content can be displayed in the user interface. Usually the image content is like icons and thumbnails which are coming from inside application installation, and cannot be changed by users or 3rd parties. Thus such content is already implementing techniques against infringements because lack of content-change feature.

                        Web browsers obviously try to do something different. They allow web site designers to change the content items. But there is warnings in the web server side, i.e. pushing your content to web server is considered dangerous operation because licensing need to be checked before uploading content to web server.

                        But it's clearly software developers who implement the client software that can control when each displayed item is possible to change by users, 3rd parties, network, databases etc, and thus it's software developer's responsibility that infringing content is not available in the software's user interface.

                        Movies are difficult aspect. Its extreamly dangerous to build software that can display or manipulate movies. The reason is that the data amounts are huge, and thus its possible that the software handles data streams that took millions of dollars to create. Any manipulation of such content is dangerous copyright-wise, and authors of projects like ffmpeg or mplayer are taking huge copyright risks when they publish such software on the internet.

                        Basically images and texts are saved from difficult copyright analysis only because creation of them is relatively cheap and there exists millions of pieces available on the internet, so actual damages of copyright issues when handling images and text are relatively small.

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

                        • icon
                          bhull242 (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 2:03pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal conten

                          Uh, what? Absolutely none of that is true. No website or software does any of that, nor could they given the enormous upload traffic many of them receive. Manipulation of data or content-change does not affect copyright infringement to make it more dangerous; on the contrary, a full, exact copy is generally considered worse than a modified copy thanks to things like fair use. And images and text are absolutely not easier to do copyright analysis. I literally just finished taking a class about handling third-party content and copyright in software, and you have it completely wrong. You clearly know nothing about what you’re talking about.

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

                          • icon
                            tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 4:06am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal co

                            Manipulation of data or content-change does not affect copyright infringement to make it more dangerous;

                            This information is coming from Richard Stallman himself:
                            "software that allows changing which font file to use, will have to deal with all the possible licenses that exists in the font files that are being used with the software"

                            This deals directly with the content-change feature, in this instance font files that libfreetype library allows you to use in your software.

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

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:09pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding lega

                              I'm just going to quote you here:

                              Its extreamly dangerous to build software that can display or manipulate movies

                              And point out that Meshpage lets you create movies, therefore your software is dangerous, therefore it must be destroyed. How many own goals is that now?

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

                              • icon
                                tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:20pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding

                                And point out that Meshpage lets you create movies

                                Nope, we call them animations because we're not using the standard mpeg technology, but instead we have our own tech that isn't yet flexible enough to play movie clips.

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

                                • icon
                                  bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:23pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Find

                                  Now you’re just arguing semantics.

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

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:34am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Find

                                  but instead we have our own tech that isn't yet flexible enough to play movie clips

                                  So what you're saying is that in the future, it could play pirated movie clips. Anticipate a lawsuit coming your way.

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

                                • icon
                                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:45am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Find

                                  "Nope, we call them animations because we're not using the standard mpeg technology, but instead we have our own tech that isn't yet flexible enough to play movie clips."

                                  Have you secured that program against the possibility that ANY user will be able to create a version of, say, "Steamboat Willie"? Or any other copyrighted character?

                                  Because if not you just argued that your tool is illegal.

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

                            • icon
                              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:43am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding lega

                              "This information is coming from Richard Stallman himself:
                              "software that allows changing which font file to use, will have to deal with all the possible licenses that exists in the font files that are being used with the software""

                              And in practice no magic exists which will allow enforcement of that. Stallman was stating a legal requirement, not accidentally revealing that copyright enforcement can work because tech experts are all in on a massive coverup conspiracy, which you seem to be implying.

                              So we're once again back to you claiming you're a software programmer who apparently hasn't a single fucking clue how a computer works.

                              You guys still getting paid for astroturfing or are you just expected to show obedience to the faith, troll?

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

                    • icon
                      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 3:00am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not

                      "Whoever builds a client that is able to display pirated content in the software's user interface is automatically liable for any copyright infringements."

                      ...right.

                      I'm starting to flag tp's posts now because it's obvious he's just trolling.

                      He's just insisted no technology beyond that of the 17th century is allowed to exist. According to law.

                      Last I checked no one has managed to successfully sue Microsoft, Oracle, or GM over this issue so "tp" is just babbling nonsense without thinking.

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

                      • icon
                        tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 3:50am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is

                        He's just insisted no technology beyond that of the 17th century is allowed to exist.

                        But I can still create over 100 million devices using these principles. Are you claiming my devices are not technology?

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

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 4:12am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal conten

                          "But I can still create over 100 million devices using these principles."

                          But, you wouldn't be able to sell a single one as they would not allow people to do anything they wanted to do.

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

                          • icon
                            tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 4:41am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal co

                            you wouldn't be able to sell a single one as they would not allow people to do anything they wanted to do.

                            Well, I know the devices are soon going to trashcan, but we hope the users spent time using the software and devices enough that the activity becomes useful. Otherwise we're just dealing with 100 million devices in dumps somewhere in europe.

                            Even my amiga gave several years of useful time for me when I was young. I hope our devices can do the same before they're discarded.

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

                            • icon
                              PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 5:04am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding lega

                              "Otherwise we're just dealing with 100 million devices in dumps somewhere in europe."

                              Well, coming from the guy that apparently threw away huge amounts of money on bus videos that anyone sensible knew would fail, I can believe that you'd also somehow manage to throw away millions on manufacturing devices nobody wants to use.

                              "Even my amiga gave several years of useful time for me when I was young"

                              Yes, they were made by competent people who identified a marketplace and successfully sold to it. That's a long way from what you're trying to push.

                              Fortunately, the real world contains lots of people who already own devices that do the things you're selling with free software, and I doubt anyone rich enough to be able to bankroll your alternative will finance such waste from your unsellable trash.

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

                            • icon
                              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:49am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding lega

                              "Even my amiga gave several years of useful time for me when I was young. I hope our devices can do the same before they're discarded."

                              Your Amiga would be illegal according to your own previous arguments. There are no safeguards on it prohibiting the end user from using it for criminal purposes.

                              Hell, a screwdriver would be. You've basically argued that no tool, ever, is allowed to exist.

                              I'm going to start flagging your comments unless they demonstrably contain better logic than you'd expect from a brain-damaged lemming.

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

                        • icon
                          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:47am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal conten

                          "But I can still create over 100 million devices using these principles. Are you claiming my devices are not technology?"

                          No you can't.

                          You've just spent twenty-odd comments trying to argue that it would be illegal for any technology to exist which could facilitate a crime.

                          That includes every manufactured tool known to man - including the one you're tyring to advertise, because you can't safeguard it from the end user recreating "Steamboat Willie" or "Daffy duck".

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

                • icon
                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:57am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the pro

                  "usually the name of the author of the client software is well known, even if they have taken steps to hide the person's identity. ISP's are also tracking people who setup servers etc."

                  Wait, so Microsoft is an accomplice to 9/11 if it turns out Bin Laden wrote his pamphlets down in "Word"?
                  Ford is an accomplice to bank robbery because they didn't make their cars impossible to use for criminals?
                  What drugs do you take to even be able to formulate that nonsense without blinking?

                  And no, ISP's usually don't "track" the communications of their clients because, you know, that would be an actual federal crime. The relevant law allowing the ISP to do that would render it impossible for banks to operate within the nation where that legislation existed.

                  "The lawsuit ought to be done to the technology providers that enable the infringing activity..."

                  Which has been tried, has failed, and will continue to fail. Unless the law of the land suddenly has a precedent for making microsoft liable for terrorist plots written in Word, Ford liable for bank robberies, and gun manufacturers liable for murder.

                  I welcome a US attempt to get such legislation off the ground. Once the NRA and Big Banking is done with the MPAA/RIAA and BSA no one in the world will ever mention copyright again.

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

                  • icon
                    tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 5:42am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the

                    ISP's usually don't "track" the communications of their clients because,

                    Making a contract between user and isp for providing internet connections in exchange for some monthly money transfer is not (by definition) communication.

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

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 6:03am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not

                      "Making a contract between user and isp for providing internet connections in exchange for some monthly money transfer is not (by definition) communication"

                      But providing the service they just paid for very much is.

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

                      • icon
                        tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 6:37am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is

                        But providing the service they just paid for very much is.

                        ISP's do not need to "track the communication", instead they just examine the contracts they have entered with the user. Their customer files clearly state which ip addresses are used for which customers, so RIAA/MPAA can summon the isp's contract files to catch the pirates. ISP is never involved in tracking the communications. Once the server ip address is known and determined to belong to certain isp, the isp has responsibility to dig through which customer provides that ip address. Then they can catch the pirates.

                        Obviously some isp's are more diligent with the copyright enforcement than others. Some of them hide behind "bit pipe" boilerplate and are resisting copyright owner's attempts to identify alleged infringers. But that position is losing battle, because laws are overwhelmingly on the side of the original authors instead of the alleged pirates.

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

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:19pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal conten

                          ISP is never involved in tracking the communications

                          You evidently haven't been looking at the actual lawsuits. Most of the RIAA vs ISP lawsuits are demands from the ISPs to show the tracked data on their consumers.

                          instead they just examine the contracts they have entered with the user

                          There are things called "dynamic IPs", you knucklehead. Even in the universe where IP addresses are, for whatever dumb reason, baked into the terms and conditions, IP addresses would still change to make this prior agreement meaningless.

                          the isp has responsibility to dig through which customer provides that ip address. Then they can catch the pirates

                          Right, like all the times they did get this information and sued children, grandmothers, homeless people, computerless people, dead people, etc etc all the times they fucked up and arrested non-pirates. Your track record is so bad, if this planet was a nuclear reactor we'd have thousands of meltdowns by now because you idiots can't be trusted with numbers.

                          But that position is losing battle, because laws are overwhelmingly on the side of the original authors instead of the alleged pirates

                          Let's see... Malibu Media, Prenda Law, Dallas Buyers Club, Elf-Man, Voltage Pictures... all getting their cases against ISPs kicked out by the courts because none of them could prove jack shit. Looks like the laws are overwhelmingly on the side of the average citizen and not money-grubbing assholes trying to cheat the justice system out of a free buck.

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

                          • icon
                            tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:27pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal co

                            Looks like the laws are overwhelmingly on the side of the average citizen and not money-grubbing assholes trying to cheat the justice system out of a free buck.

                            Lets do a calculation:
                            1) I spend $100,000 to develop some software
                            2) I try to license it to 10 companies, $10,000 each
                            3) now instead of taking the license, copyright infringement
                            will allow you to use the software without compensation
                            Now my $100,000 investment needs to be covered by the licensees, but why
                            would you get the software without compensation?

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

                            • icon
                              bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:22pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding lega

                              Well, assuming that there’s nothing important being left out, you could sue them for copyright infringement, maybe even some sort of business-related tort as well. That case seems pretty straightforward. It also has nothing to do with anything we’ve been discussing thus far.

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

                            • icon
                              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:58am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding lega

                              "Now my $100,000 investment needs to be covered by the licensees, but why would you get the software without compensation?"

                              Because there is very little you can do to claim said compensation.

                              Microsoft has tried time and time again, until they gave it up as a bad (and very expensive) job.
                              Today what they are saying is that they'd rather the user pirates their products than switches to Linux or Mac. They no longer bother to even try going after pirates unless said pirate actually sells bulk installations.

                              Individual users will compensate for software licenses if they WANT to support the vendor and find the method of licensing convenient and well priced. Or they may choose any of the dozens of free open source alternatives instead.

                              Corporations will buy the licenses because verifying the license key is usually part of their internal audit processes. Or may opt for the free open source alternatives instead.

                              Today most software vendors focus on selling maintenance and adaptation services rather than just the licences, because they know the information control-based model doesn't work anymore.

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

                              • icon
                                PaulT (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 2:07am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding

                                "Today what they are saying is that they'd rather the user pirates their products than switches to Linux or Mac"

                                To the point where they've actually started including Linux components directly within their OS, a complete about face from where they were fighting tooth and nail a decade ago.

                                It's amazing how a company like Microsoft can make the sane decision, but some pissant failure insists he's due money.

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

                                • icon
                                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 16 Jan 2020 @ 7:32am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Find

                                  "It's amazing how a company like Microsoft can make the sane decision, but some pissant failure insists he's due money."

                                  As amazing as his idea that the one who build the technology is liable for every malicious use of it? That's what gets to me.

                                  That and his suggestions on how to "safeguard" his own tool from abuse which only serves to illustrate he doesn't know how computers work.

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

                            • icon
                              PaulT (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 2:10am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding lega

                              "but why would you get the software without compensation?"

                              Because a developer that's depending on selling to 10 users at $10k a pop has such a poor business model that they'll have folded before you've requested your first support ticket?

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

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2020 @ 5:33pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding lega

                              I'll note that you've once again decided not to address any of the points brought up and instead continue to whine about scenarios where you flog off your crappy Meshpage at 3ds max-level prices.

                              At this point considering that you support people who sue grandmothers for money I wouldn't be surprised if people refuse to get your license out of sheer spite.

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

                    • icon
                      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:51am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not

                      "Making a contract between user and isp for providing internet connections in exchange for some monthly money transfer is not (by definition) communication."

                      According to every law on the tablets, yes it is.
                      At least learn what the law says before you try to argue about it.

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

            • icon
              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:50am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

              "It's very simple to sue the people. You launch the client, watch these pirate product names appear to the screen, you store the screenshot of the pirate products for courts to examine, and once you have the evidence stored, you can start procedings against the authors of the client and maintainers of the support infrastructure that allows this."

              As we've seen in the increasingly desperate attempts by the copyright cult to do exactly that every such attempt has failed or turned into a vast loss operation. Worldwide.
              Case in point the biggest "success" for copyright enforcement in the last ten years or so - the Cox case - actually forces every US ISP to do one of two things - quit their business or stop giving the copyright enforcers anything while scrupulously enforcing the safeharbor provisions of the DMCA. Cox's biggest issue was that they tried to meet copyright enforcers to the best of their ability, which just wasn't enough when there's a thousand copyright trolls eagerly looking for easy tort. And meeting them fully means the ISP couldn't, in practice, operate at all.

              Your last sentence - of holding actual internet technology responsible isn't exactly a blinding insight either since, for that to work, we'd have to abolish mass communication completely or turn it into such a regulated and expensive structure to maintain only the supremely wealthy could afford it. I actually look forward to some harebrained legislation of this kind rendering it, in practice, as legally safe to operate a US ISP as it would be to operate a metamphetamine facility.

              I doubt you've actually written a single line of code in your life or you'd know full well just how impossible your suggestion is, to anyone who knows the simplest basics around computers and networking.

              Let me break it down to you in the simplest possible terms once again;

              Once you've gotten to every ISP, every network provider, every backbone provider, the DNS namespace, and every computer OEM...
              ...piracy will STILL remain untouched.

              Therefore i reiterate; "Like it or not the reality that you need to address is that the user convenience you must meet to remain competitive IS going to match up against the various pirate index pages and the increasingly popular DHT-driven alternatives."

              End of story.

              If that isn't to your liking you can, of course, deny reality until increasing costs of futile enforcement run your business into the ground.

              "It's very simple to sue the people."
              The same way it's very "easy" to fly as long as you just flap your hands fast enough.

              If your arguments are indicative of your normal reasoning then I can understand why no one wants to buy your product. You seem to substitute wishful thinking and hopeful assumptions instead of factual reality before constructing answers to issues.

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

              • icon
                tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 9:33pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the problem

                Once you've gotten to every ISP, every network provider, every backbone provider, the DNS namespace, and every computer OEM...

                piracy will STILL remain untouched.

                Copyright owners purpose for sueing the pirates is not to remove piracy from the world. They just want the money back what they invested to the product. If there are too small number of licensees that are actually paying for the product, the copyright owners have no other choice than sue the nearest pirates they can find and hope courts are making them win the lawsuit.

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

                • icon
                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 2:06am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finding legal content is not the pro

                  "Copyright owners purpose for sueing the pirates is not to remove piracy from the world. They just want the money back what they invested to the product."

                  And precisely that is what they aren't getting. Even the copyright troll enforcement companies aren't breaking even, looking at the vast amount of bankruptcies and disbarments in that field.

                  "...the copyright owners have no other choice than sue the nearest pirates they can find and hope courts are making them win the lawsuit."

                  They have tried this for well over 30 years and it still doesn't work. For good and valid reason. Any law which would enable that model has side effects which would make it hazardous to even own a computer.

                  You seem to know very little about copyright law, normal law, telecom regulations, computers and networks...and anything else you've seen fit to weigh in on.

                  I don't think anyone here is interested in your arguments about how it's possible to fly if you just flap your hands fast enough, or how owning and operating a crowbar must be considered illegal unless the hardware store owner has a camcorder attached to it to ensure you aren't using it for criminal purposes.

                  And by now I'm pretty sure no one believes you have the ability to program your way out of a wet paper bag because the logic you employ proves you know jack shit about computers and networks. Or law, or recent copyright history, for that matter.

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

  • icon
    PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:08am

    "It might not be possible to create both excellent product that people want to consume and also awesome distribution network that reaches millions of users around the globe."

    Again, you're spewing your nonsense on a story about how people are complaining that the movies they love are being removed from the service that they and millions of others are already paying for.

    Your rambling idiocy is always misplaced, but the very story you're commenting on is disproving all your supposed points before you even started typing.

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

    • icon
      tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:25am

      Re:

      the movies they love are being removed from the service

      Obviously authors can decide what product they're offering and when those products are available to customers. Deviating from those designated time frames are easy way to get sued by the entertainment industry. I.e. when they have movies leaking before publishing dates to the market, whoever receives those versions of the product outside their release windows are perfect candidates for copyright infringement lawsuit. Obviously if author decides that the product is not availabe in year 2020, and market still have people consuming it in 2020, it's clear indication that the product is illegally available in the market.

      The removal of the products often have license issues, i.e. original authors only licensed it for some time window, and displaying it on other times is not possible. Or they could be trying to catch pirates by controlling release times.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:32am

        Re: Re:

        In a word where supplying on demand anywhere in the world is a trivial exercise, the use of release windows, removing from the market for a period to try and drive up demand, and other studio tricks are a recipe for encouraging piracy and/or losing customers to actual creators who care about their audience.

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

        • icon
          tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:39am

          Re: Re: Re:

          studio tricks are a recipe for encouraging piracy and/or losing customers to actual creators who care about their audience.

          I never used any studio tricks or other evil stuff to market my wares, but I'm still not seeing huge amount of studio audiences queuing my product. Maybe they come after I implement monetizing features?

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:59am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Maybe they come after I implement monetizing features?

            Maybe they will come if and when it does something that they find valuable.

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

            • icon
              tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 7:04am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Maybe they will come if and when it does something that they find valuable.

              It's not that easy. Users simply don't know your product exists, even if it provides the exact solution they're looking for. It's just hidden in a flood of 2 billion other web sites and noone will find out how great the product is.

              You need both the product, and the distribution network.

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

              • icon
                Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 7:13am

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

                Social media can solve that problem easily. The trick, as I learned right here on TD, is to be social. That means talking to people about what's going on from their perspective, then seeing if your product can address their issues. If it can, job done.

                When I had my own web design service back in the day, I would chat to developers, bloggers, and all sorts of other people about issues tangential to the service I provided, e.g. hosting, types of web design, search engines and SEO, etc. When they needed a web designer, I was top of the list because they believed I knew what I was on about.

                It takes a lot of effort to cultivate fans, but that's how you do it.

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

                • icon
                  tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 7:17am

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

                  It takes a lot of effort to cultivate fans, but that's how you do it.

                  that's the whole point about my nice goverment mansion story...

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

                  • icon
                    Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 8:24am

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

                    LOL!

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

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 8:32am

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

                    "that's the whole point about my nice goverment mansion story.."

                    Yes, we've been through your fantasy before. What a shame you still cling to that as a way to blame everyone else for your failures.

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

                    • icon
                      tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 3:03pm

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

                      What a shame you still cling to that as a way to blame everyone else for your failures.

                      Well, the failures are evolving:
                      1) at beginning there was no project, so noone would buy it
                      2) then you only have 1 3d object
                      3) then you only have 1 computer game
                      4) then you only now got frame rates working
                      5) then you only have a web page that allows storing your work
                      6) then you have 30 3d objects available in the web page
                      7) then you have 15 computer games available in itch.io
                      8) then you have 70 3d objects availalble in the web page
                      9) then you only get performance to acceptable level
                      But, you don't have:
                      10) you don't have 2 million content items like youtube has
                      11) you don't have community of 5 million people
                      12) you cannot make 5 millioin dollars revenue
                      13) you use browser technology that doesnt allow the performance profile that we request
                      14) you don't have monetizing system designed to annoy your million end users
                      15) you cannot reach all the people that pirate vendors can reach
                      16) you're not using newest (vulkan) technology so your product is outdated
                      17) this product was already available in our social media channel, can't you create something we haven't seen yet?
                      18) your documentation isn't as large as wikipedia
                      19) your end users are not willing to spend their money on that product
                      20) your videos are not available in disney+, netflix, youtube or wikipedia

                      Etc, the failures keep evolving.... When will the demands for better features end?

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

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 6:41pm

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

                        Why would videos on YouTube matter for 3D modeling/engine software? Half your "better features" aren't even features. Meshpage is not even in the same market as Netflix or Wikipedia. Unless you're flogging print copies of Encyclopedia Britannica from 1987 why would anyone look at 3D modeling software like Autodesk and refuse to buy it because Wikipedia exists? Who even uses Wikipedia as a video platform, for fuck's sake?

                        Like, I swear half your rants are nothing more than detailing elaborate plans for people to make fun of you, and the other half is you bitching about people taking the bait...

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

                        • icon
                          tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 7:34pm

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

                          Why would videos on YouTube matter for 3D modeling/engine software?

                          People get used to the products of established players, and bringing new product that isn't excelling in those same areas is doomed to failure.

                          You've all the time claimed that our web page is a failure, but when the reasons of the failure are revealed to you, you refuse to believe it?

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

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 8:16pm

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

                            People get used to the products of established players, and bringing new product that isn't excelling in those same areas is doomed to failure

                            Again, why would 3D modeling software need to compete with video hosting? Why is consumer decision-making based on you catering to completely unrelated markets? That's like a vegetarian visiting a salad bar for lettuce, then setting the place on fire because they don't offer beef filet mignon.

                            You've all the time claimed that our web page is a failure, but when the reasons of the failure are revealed to you, you refuse to believe it?

                            Your website isn't a failure because you have a shit product. All you have is animated tech demos that look like Neopets flash games of the early 2000s. You didn't think that having decent design and presentation is necessary? Is that why all you got was two buses in London to carry your "advert"?

                            To be fair, that's not the only reason. It's also completely uninformative as to what a user or consumer would even want Meshpage for, never mind pay for. Why would I pay millions of dollars for a desert plane animation that looks like a child put it together in Roblox?

                            And as usual, your whining about "boohoo, nobody wants to use Meshpage because they use Autodesk Maya and 3dsmax" is icing on the cake. Imagine that, people want more than birds shaped like Ws and desert hills that don't look like kindergarten-level zigzag cutouts! Are you going to cry that Pixar should shut down because their movies make your product look terrible by comparison?

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

                            • icon
                              tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 8:32pm

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

                              desert plane animation that looks like a child put it together in Roblox?

                              Maybe I'm going to attract children to the web page? The tool I'm offering is perfect for children who already knows everything about games and is wanting to explore how to create their own computer games.

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

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 9:24pm

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

                                So don't complain that adults look at a product aimed at children and don't use the product not aimed at adults, genius.

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

                            • icon
                              tp (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 3:34am

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

                              Are you going to cry that Pixar should shut down because their movies make your product look terrible by comparison?

                              Pixar should make their tech so simple to use that even children can use it and get the same results as we see in tv. Are you going to destroy children's dreams of being able to create awesome 3d graphics simply by making the tooling too complicated and burdensome to use?

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

                              • icon
                                bhull242 (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 10:26pm

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

                                Simple tools used by children are highly unlikely to be able to make the same quality products as more advanced tools. That’s not to say it’s impossible, but more complicated tools are likely to have advanced features that allow for better results.

                                Also, Pixar’s tech isn’t available to consumers last I checked, so its market would be experienced animators/designers, not children.

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

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2020 @ 1:41am

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

                                Game design and animation tools already exist for kids, so no, those dreams aren't broken.

                                And if you're appealing to kids by the basis of the simplicity of your graphics, and yet they want to do what Pixar does, then what does that say about the demand for your tool since your tool can't generate Pixar graphics? Nice own goal, would get baited again.

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

                                • icon
                                  tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 6:06am

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

                                  Game design and animation tools already exist for kids, so no, those dreams aren't broken.

                                  These tools are not coming from pixar, even though they're leading vendor of computer animations in the kids area.

                                  then what does that say about the demand for your tool since your tool can't generate Pixar graphics?

                                  Every vendor needs to find suitable niche area where they can do the best work on the planet. I've just decided to do computer animation tools suitable for children. That niche already have some competition like roblox, but there
                                  still might be good market for the tool.

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

                                  • icon
                                    bhull242 (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 6:49am

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

                                    I already said that Pixar’s animation tools aren’t available for anyone outside of Disney to use. They aren’t sold at all.

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

                                  • icon
                                    PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 7:13am

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

                                    "These tools are not coming from pixar, even though they're leading vendor of computer animations in the kids area."

                                    LEGO also don't make their plastic moulding plants accessible to the average 8 year old. So? Does that somehow kill kids' creativity when playing with LEGO or stop them moving to more advanced tools when they outgrow the ones they use as kids?

                                    "Every vendor needs to find suitable niche area where they can do the best work on the planet"

                                    Yes, and many fail miserably while finding a spot in the marketplace, as you have found.

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

                                    • icon
                                      tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 7:34am

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

                                      > "Every vendor needs to find suitable niche area where they can do the best work on the planet"

                                      Yes, and many fail miserably while finding a spot in the marketplace, as you have found.

                                      Market's requirements for new products are often unrealistic. They expect your software to allow travelling to the moon, without nasa's help. The market seems to push the requirements that are impossible to implement to the technology people's requirement lists. Time machines, travelling to other galaxies, warp drives, teleporting and other impossible stuff keep appearing in the requirements, without any consideration if those are possible to implement. Then they complain loudly that tech people cannot implement their (broken) requirements.

                                      Even when the requirement is possible to implement, it could be outright dangerous to humans if it is implemented. Guns, laser swords, pathogens, spy equipment are common in people's wishes.

                                      When we have to refuse their requirement requests, those refusals are not made lightly. There is always some underlying flaw in the argument which prevents the implementation or its simply not safe for humans. Copyright issues belong to the same category, they cause significant number of feature rejections.

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

                                      • identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:21pm

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

                                        Copyright issues belong to the same category, they cause significant number of feature rejections.

                                        Thanks once again for confirming that your software shares similar features to existing software, such as putting 3D shapes onto screen, and by your copyright rules Meshpage must be deleted. Congratulations!

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

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2020 @ 3:11am

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

                            People get used to the products of established players, and bringing new product that isn't excelling in those same areas is doomed to failure.

                            If that what you think, give up and stop complaining. otherwise go and learn how create interest in a product, rather than destroy it via web site that leaves most people clueless about what's on offer, and continuous whining to which leads people to thing the project will soon fold and go away.

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

                            • icon
                              tp (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 3:47am

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

                              If that what you think, give up....which leads people to think the project will soon fold and go away.

                              There is no good reason to quit even if you don't immediately find solution to all failures that exist in your product. You just need to lower the price to level where the benefits and cost o the product are in balance.

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

                              • icon
                                bhull242 (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 10:33pm

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

                                There are products out there that you couldn’t pay me to buy. If there’s no demand for your product whatsoever—whether because of poor marketing, poor distribution methods, or a poor product—then the price is effectively irrelevant, especially if it’s nonzero.

                                I agree that failing to immediately find solutions to all the failures in your product is not a reason to quit. However, you’ve been complaining about this for a while, and the complaint has been inability to get anyone to try because of “competition” from other, unrelated markets, which is insoluble. Additionally, the price can only go so low.

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

                                • icon
                                  tp (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 11:43pm

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

                                  There are products out there that you couldn’t pay me to buy.

                                  Usually the products created by large teams and which are globally distributed can do higher quality than what smaller teams can do.

                                  But small teams can more quickly adjust to the changes in the marketplace.

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

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2020 @ 1:35am

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

                                    But small teams can more quickly adjust to the changes in the marketplace.

                                    So why haven't you?

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

                                  • icon
                                    bhull242 (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 1:49am

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

                                    True, but my point was that price-adjustment can only go so far.

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

                        • icon
                          tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 8:11pm

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

                          why would anyone look at 3D modeling software like Autodesk and refuse to buy it because Wikipedia exists?

                          Well, I googled for my web page name and found that one blog has written an article about the site. The reactions I get from the bloggers are nice example of what could be the real problem:
                          https://mediaisnothingtomebutistilllikeit.wordpress.com/

                          in that page, there's short review of meshpage, which kinda explains the market position of my web site in 2017 when the bus ads were running....

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

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2020 @ 9:25pm

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

                            You seriously think that a review from two years ago on a dead blog, written by some Instagram teenager who has even worse English than you do, is costing you all the sales of a program that isn't even available for download on the animation pages?

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

                            • icon
                              tp (profile), 8 Jan 2020 @ 9:39pm

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

                              costing you all the sales of a program that isn't even available for download on the animation pages?

                              i added a link to the tool download page.

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

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2020 @ 12:58am

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

                                Still didn't answer the question of you actually thinking some nobody on the Internet is costing you all your sales, but par for the course when trying to winkle a response out of you...

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

                                • icon
                                  tp (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 1:43am

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

                                  you actually thinking some nobody on the Internet is costing you all your sales,

                                  Naah, blogs like that are just ok. Every mention is positive, teenagers are using anyway some funny language that noone else in the world speaks.

                                  And I can now claim that my webpage is endorsed by the blogs.

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

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2020 @ 4:40pm

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

                                    Every mention is positive?

                                    Guess you won't mind other readers saying "Meshpage sucks" then. Nice going...

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

                                  • icon
                                    PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 5:47am

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

                                    "Every mention is positive"

                                    Then why are you whining about how a single mention lost all the sales of your shitty product?

                                    But, hey, at least you're admitting that your horrendous bus ads were worth less than a single teenager's free wordpress post. Progress...

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

                      • icon
                        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 5:36am

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

                        "Etc, the failures keep evolving.... When will the demands for better features end?"

                        Funny.

                        Paulo Coelho put up his work on the pirate bay and got an extra 12 million copies sold.

                        Trent Reznor gave away an album for free...and Ghost I-IV made the billboard 200 within week One.

                        As you've noticed by now the primary point of competition isn't piracy. That hardly even matters. When you launch any entertainment media your competition is everything else occupying consumer attention. From movies to mobile games.

                        Unless you are extremely outstanding or happen to look like a studio's currently desired "six-week-wonder" odds are good you are simply shit outta luck and should consider a day job.

                        Many are called. Few chosen. It's a fact that not everyone gets to make making art their choice of career.
                        Not everyone gets to be an astronaut or successful brain surgeon either but the wannabes there whine a lot less than the would-be rockstars and bestseller authors.

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

                        • icon
                          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 5:46am

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

                          ...addendum to the above; When it comes to software and tools this hurdle rises sharply since there are just so damn many skilled programmers who wrote their own version of a given app and launched it as FOSS.

                          You want to launch a new word processor? Well, it has to be better, more intuitive, and contain significant improvements over libreoffice and Word to stand a chance.

                          A new image processing app? Oh, dear...an even dozen and counting, all with excellent abilities.

                          Honestly, the way you do it today in software is to launch the app you built as open source then when the reviews come in, use it on your CV to get a good job.

                          Or, as a programmer, get yourself accredited to code on SAP systems and start raking in gagging bagfuls of cash for mediocre drudge work done mainly to fix the mistakes of grossly overpaying corporations.

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

                          • icon
                            tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 7:00am

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

                            Honestly, the way you do it today in software is to launch the app you built as open source then when the reviews come in

                            My product have been in open source for several years. The process doesnt seem to work like you think. for example this happened under open source:
                            1) github repo was not used for its original purpose of distributing source code,
                            instead the trolls spent time on critique of dead code
                            2) licensing was not considered a positive sign it was designed for, instead they
                            consider "free" to be sign that the software has no value whatsoever
                            3) the community's only contribution has been attempts to bypass login systems and trying all kinds of illegal tricks
                            4) the source availability of open source has tendency to being misused by piracy groups, i.e. they modify offered software to be more suitable for piracy and bypassing provided copyright protection mechanisms

                            Basically the trolls on the internet are misusing the ideals by which free software community has been built from. The techniques are no longer working the way it worked still in 1990's, and something new is required. I've long since moved to more modern approach/web platform's rules, i.e. keeping my source code hidden inside my web server, and providing only working user interface to users, without providing source code.

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

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:23pm

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

                              In other words, people recognized that your software is terrible, and you chose to make it as inaccessible as possible, and for some reason believe that this effort entitles you to a government-sponsored mansion.

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

                              • icon
                                tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 9:43pm

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

                                In other words, people recognized that your software is terrible

                                This indicates that you never managed to get any software done, even after your mom kepr feeding the best serials to you for last 18 years.

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

                        • icon
                          tp (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 6:15am

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

                          Paulo Coelho put up his work on the pirate bay and got an extra 12 million copies sold.

                          That sounds horrible. I hope he prepared properly to the task of packaging the content and collecting the money, or else he'll have few years without sleep when customers keep pinging his email and calling his phone number in middle of night to obtain the content he published.

                          Large operations like that needs to be planned very carefully or else it'll be huge catastrophy.

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

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2020 @ 4:40pm

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

                            Large operations like that needs to be planned very carefully or else it'll be huge catastrophy.

                            Then congratulations, you've got a "huge catastrophy" on your hands!

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

                          • icon
                            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 3:08am

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

                            "That sounds horrible. I hope he prepared properly to the task of packaging the content and collecting the money..."

                            What happened was that Coelho already had all books up for sale with a distributor. Then a copy of "The Alchemist" leaked on Pirate Bay. His physical sales swelled by 12 million copies.

                            To a great author, and a great work, piracy is not a problem, only beneficial.

                            We've grown used to the idea that mediocrity also deserves recognition, as if everyone who put pen to paper deserved fame and fortune. An idea peddled by the MPAA and the RIAA mainly.

                            The problem is that has never been true. There is no room in art for the mediocre and uninspiring. There never was. Unless you are an inspired genius, don't quit your day job.

                            It's a bit like science in that there is room in the Nobel prizes only for a very select few who were skilled, incredibly smart, and lucky.

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

                            • icon
                              tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 5:22am

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

                              Then a copy of "The Alchemist" leaked on Pirate Bay. His physical sales swelled by 12 million copies.

                              This sounds like marketing pitch from pirate bay central. Are they trying to position their web site as something actually useful, after naming the service as hub for pirated products?

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

                              • icon
                                PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 5:59am

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

                                "This sounds like marketing pitch from pirate bay central."

                                Do you have any evidence to counter it?

                                "Are they trying to position their web site as something actually useful"

                                They already have. It's way more useful than anything you've ever done in your pitiful life already, in fact.

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

                              • icon
                                Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 3:06am

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

                                "This sounds like marketing pitch from pirate bay central. Are they trying to position their web site as something actually useful, after naming the service as hub for pirated products?"

                                ...you...aren't for real, are you?

                                TPB hasn't ever "marketed" themselves as anything other than "Feel free to place your torrent files/magnet links here".

                                As for "The Alchemist", the takeaway is that coelho gained, massively from the exposure, earning himself millions of physical sales.

                                When it comes to information you've succeeded if you can still sell it after everyone has it - like when a popular radio hit turns into a platinum album.

                                Because the information, if published, will become the property of everyone who wants it. This is guaranteed. It's up to you to construct your business model around that market, not up to the market to cater to your whims.

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

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 5:58am

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

                            "That sounds horrible"

                            12 million extra sales sounds horrible? Hmmm, are you a deliberate failure?

                            "customers keep pinging his email and calling his phone number in middle of night to obtain the content he published"

                            Nah, I'm sure he has a competent publisher to avoid the idiocy that happens in your fantasy world.

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

                            • icon
                              tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 6:24am

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

                              Nah, I'm sure he has a competent publisher to avoid the idiocy that happens in your fantasy world.

                              And when this happens to some 16 year old children who explored the piracy world and pushed his poems and contact information to the pirates? Do all these people also have a publisher that handles the customer calls?

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

                              • icon
                                bhull242 (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 6:54am

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

                                I’m sorry, but what kind of customer calls would 16-year-old poets have to handle, anyways?

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

                              • icon
                                PaulT (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 7:17am

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

                                "And when this happens to some 16 year old children who explored the piracy world and pushed his poems and contact information to the pirates?"

                                You seem to be losing your tenuous grip on reality again.

                                "Do all these people also have a publisher that handles the customer calls?"

                                With your talk of customer calls, shelf space and video tapes, and your ads on buses populated exclusively by people who have no interest in your software's platform, it's clear you've no idea how the modern marketplace works.

                                I'm truly sorry that the modern world has left you behind, but it has nothing to do with piracy.

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

                      • icon
                        bhull242 (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 5:28am

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

                        Of the “don’t have”s, only 13, 16, and 17 may actually be even close to actual problems you’re facing. No one demanded 10-12, 15, or 18-20, that’s for sure.

                        Actually, even in the “have”s, 7 isn’t all that relavent either.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2020 @ 7:52am

    By Tero Pulkinnen's own admission if a kid used his Meshpage to animated a bootleg Mickey cartoon he'd be liable for copyright infringement lawsuits because his code doesn't prevent it.

    Game, set, match.

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

    • icon
      tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 11:32am

      Re:

      if a kid used his Meshpage to animated a bootleg Mickey cartoon he'd be liable for copyright infringement lawsuits

      This is true. There exists some protection against this situation from happening in meshpage. Currently there hasn't been enough users to verify that the protections are working accurately enough, but at least some actions have been taken to prepare for this problem.

      Basically it doesnt allow publishing the material (via meshpage) if the content isnt coming from user's own web space. This is supposed to ensure that mickey mouse images are not being used.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2020 @ 12:20pm

        Re: Re:

        So how do people collaborate on the same project?

        All attempts to prevent infringement in a product meant to enable creativity result in a crippled product.

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

        • icon
          tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 12:25pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So how do people collaborate on the same project?

          Well, you post your animation to the web page, which publishes it, and then your friends can see it. Then it's possible to place your animations to your own homepage.

          All attempts to prevent infringement in a product meant to enable creativity result in a crippled product.

          This isn't true. Infringement isn't necessary to enable creativity.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2020 @ 12:39pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            This isn't true. Infringement isn't necessary to enable creativity.

            I didn't say it was, but:-

            Well, you post your animation to the web page, which publishes it, and then your friends can see it. Then it's possible to place your animations to your own homepage.

            Stops two or more people working on the same animation, which means you have crippled your product.

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

            • icon
              tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 12:46pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Stops two or more people working on the same animation, which means you have crippled your product.

              huh? they can just pass the keyboard and mouse to the next person who wants to make changes.

              You're assuming some crazy collaboration tool like google docs which is too difficult for children to setup.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2020 @ 1:05pm

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

                huh? they can just pass the keyboard and mouse to the next person who wants to make changes.

                Not if they are on the web, and can see and use what the others put on their pages. One advantage of the Internet is that collaborators do not have to be on the same continent.

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

                • icon
                  tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 1:14pm

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

                  One advantage of the Internet is that collaborators do not have to be on the same continent.

                  I wouldn't put children to go through that horror.

                  It's better if they spend a month tweaking their animations alone, and once its finished after 30th iteration, they decide that it's now good enough to publish, and then they put it to the web page for others to see.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2020 @ 1:31pm

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

                    Why should you decide what other peoples children can or cannot do? One kid may be a good character creator, and another a better story teller, and between them they can produce a better animation than either could alone. Besides online cooperation is fast becoming a necessary skill for any skills based job.

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

                    • icon
                      tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 1:41pm

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

                      One kid may be a good character creator, and another a better story teller, and between them they can produce a better animation than either could alone.

                      It doesnt work like that. The animation technology has some limitations which kinda prevent this use case. First when they create animations, the maximum size of animations is like 300 nodes, after that the animation becomes unusable.
                      This limit would break if more than one person worked on an animation.

                      Then there's GPU performance problems. Once you pile up more and more content to the same screen, at some point the gpu stops rendering it fast enough and their "collaboration" stops producing any useful output. For this reason the animations are divided to different web pages, with normal browser back-key to switch between animations.

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

                      • icon
                        bhull242 (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 2:12pm

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

                        So you’re expecting children, working on their own, to be able to create Pixar-quality animations using your software with such a restriction on the level of detail?

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

                        • icon
                          tp (profile), 10 Jan 2020 @ 2:30pm

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

                          So you’re expecting children, working on their own, to be able to create Pixar-quality animations using your software with such a restriction on the level of detail?

                          Well, I don't yet know how far children can navigate my tool before using it becomes impossible because they cannot figure out what technique solves the problem. There are multiple places where it could fail:
                          1) learning to create/delete nodes
                          2) learning to connect nodes
                          3) learning to connect all slots in left side of the node
                          4) learning to display the end result from display menu
                          5) learning to combine meshes using or_elem
                          6) learning to render mesh using p_render or m_bind
                          7) learning to assign materials to meshes
                          8) learning to terminate material chains
                          9) learning to move meshes using move_ml
                          10) learning coordinate systems for positioning and movement
                          11) learning hex numbers for setting colours
                          12) learning to use web space
                          13) learning to load external files from web space
                          14) learning to connect the whole render graph
                          15) learning volume objects and voxels

                          At some point, depending on the age and skill level of the children, they simply cannot figure out how to go forward in the tool, and at that point the activity is likely to stop unless some more experienced people can help to go forward.

                          But older children can learn the whole tool and then they can create similar animations than what are available in the meshpage...

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

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2020 @ 9:07pm

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

                            There are multiple places where it could fail

                            So what you're saying is that your product, aimed at children as you quoted, might not actually be simple enough for them to use. Therefore, like you've argued about Pixar's tools, they should be scrapped because children can't use them.

                            Discourse with you is like kicking a retarded puppy I don't feel sorry for.

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

                            • icon
                              tp (profile), 11 Jan 2020 @ 12:56am

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

                              So what you're saying is that your product, aimed at children as you quoted, might not actually be simple enough for them to use.

                              There are bigger problems than this. Videos adverticing my system are not popular enough that they would be displayed to potential users, so none of the children even knows the system exists.

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

                              • icon
                                bhull242 (profile), 11 Jan 2020 @ 4:03pm

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

                                Well, first of all, what videos are you even talking about, and how do you plan to get kids to watch them?

                                Second, I think you should probably fix the more obvious roadblocks (like hex numbers for colors) before worrying about grabbing kids’ attention.

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

                                • icon
                                  tp (profile), 11 Jan 2020 @ 5:58pm

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

                                  What videos are you even talking about

                                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UF0zIMI2xA&feature=youtu.be
                                  https://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=WZxCE-RsBDc&feature=youtu.be

                                  how do you plan to get kids to watch them?

                                  I just dumped the videos to youtube and expect the crowd to get interested...

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

                                  • icon
                                    bhull242 (profile), 11 Jan 2020 @ 6:52pm

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

                                    I’ll watch the videos in a bit, but first, I’d just like to say that, while I’m far from an expert in YouTube algorithms or advertising, just dumping them on YouTube seems like a pretty weak strategy, but I suppose it’s better than the London buses.

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

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2020 @ 2:47am

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

                                    If you expect those videos to attract any attention to your product you are delusional. Some blocky animations that look like they come the 8 bit era , with no sound or demonstration of the actual program, or even hint they are advertising a program, are not going to attract any interest.

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

                                    • icon
                                      tp (profile), 12 Jan 2020 @ 4:45am

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

                                      Some blocky animations that look like they come the 8 bit era

                                      You have to learn to walk before you can run.

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

                                      • identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2020 @ 6:46am

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

                                        And you need to learn a lot about marketing, as your efforts have not yet reached the crawling stage.

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

                                        • icon
                                          tp (profile), 12 Jan 2020 @ 6:56am

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

                                          And you need to learn a lot about marketing,

                                          It's no surprise that programmers get their code working, but then marketing is left for those who actually understand how to spam people's email boxes without annoying people with cold contacts.

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

                                          • icon
                                            bhull242 (profile), 12 Jan 2020 @ 2:06pm

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

                                            Uhhh… that’s not a generally effective method of marketing, either. It’s usually stuff like word-of-mouth or ads on websites, YouTube videos, cable, etc. Mailing lists are a terrible way to advertise.

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

                                            • icon
                                              tp (profile), 12 Jan 2020 @ 3:59pm

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

                                              Mailing lists are a terrible way to advertise.

                                              Still all the products and web sites seem to take your email address and spam you with their weekly newsletter to ensure that you don't forget that the product exists.

                                              I'm not yet popular enough to start doing such evil practises.

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

                                              • identicon
                                                Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2020 @ 4:57pm

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

                                                I'm not yet popular enough to start doing such evil practises.

                                                And yet here you are, asking for mansions.

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

                                                • icon
                                                  tp (profile), 12 Jan 2020 @ 5:55pm

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

                                                  And yet here you are, asking for mansions.

                                                  Well, the government is the most probable place where to get the money to cover the development costs of the system.

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

                                                  • identicon
                                                    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2020 @ 8:05pm

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

                                                    And you are doing a terrible job convincing anyone to pay you for a mansion.

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

                                                    • icon
                                                      tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 5:36am

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

                                                      And you are doing a terrible job convincing anyone to pay you for a mansion.

                                                      Original mansion story only expected government to provide plans of a mansion. I obviously have other plans for full scale mansion. But government is currently not even providing working plans, so full scale mansion is probably unrealistic to expect from them.

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

                                                      • icon
                                                        bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:02pm

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

                                                        I’m still perplexed as to why you think the government was going to provide plans for mansions for your software. I’ve heard the explanation, but it doesn’t make logical sense to me (or anyone else, apparently).

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

                                                        • identicon
                                                          Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:44am

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

                                                          I’ve heard the explanation, but it doesn’t make logical sense to me (or anyone else, apparently).

                                                          Because copyright is brain damage, that's why.

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

                                                          • icon
                                                            bhull242 (profile), 15 Jan 2020 @ 8:52am

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

                                                            Here’s the thing: I do think there is a certain rationale for copyright that I can fully get behind if properly implemented. I also believe that, as a general rule, piracy is wrong and should be punished accordingly and proportionately.

                                                            The problem is that the most powerful entities and the most vocal people who speak in favor of copyright and against piracy tend to push things too far, are completely ignorant (willfully or not) of copyright law, economics, and/or reality, are just really bad at coming up with good arguments or examples to support their claims, or some combination of the above, and in some cases deliberately abuse copyright law just to earn a quick buck or silence critics. Because of this, I often have to be more critical of copyright and more defensive of piracy than I feel I ought to be. I don’t like having to criticize creative outlets or defend unlawful, immoral, and/or unethical activity, but people and entities like tp, the MPAA, the RIAA, Disney, Malibu Media, Rightshaven, Prenda Law, that guy who tried to sneak in IP stuff into the TPP, and those German, Spanish, and Belgian newspapers force my hand by pushing things way too far in the direction of overprotection or overextension of copyright and entitlement to success.

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

                                                        • icon
                                                          tp (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 3:16am

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

                                                          I’m still perplexed as to why you think the government was going to provide plans for mansions for your software.

                                                          Obviously something happened where government/politicians promised the people who work hard to build software that the market for copyrighted works would exist and it would be possible for different sizes of teams to make a living while writing software. Basically the university education was government's cunning plan to get large number of people study computer science in exchange of getting better life for everyone.

                                                          Now the government's plan did work so that we actually learned to write software. Sadly the market never materialized, so there is danger that the work goes to waste when companies cannot utilize the work that was done. While market for physical products was strong, end users simply refuse to pay for the software, simply because everyone thinks "copying" is completely free operation, and they shouldn't pay for receiving a copy.

                                                          So there is good plan to test if government is serious in trying to build a market for software products. Asking government to execute the initial steps for creating a mansion, i.e. getting plans done with the software I provided is good test if government is serious with their promises.

                                                          note that for government's promise is fullfilled, if there exists one person who decides to try my tool and create plans for a mansion with it. But no, government doesn't seem to be prepared for such complex operations, given that everyone I've seen has just refused to try the tool that is available.

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

                                                          • icon
                                                            PaulT (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 3:36am

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

                                                            "Sadly the market never materialized"

                                                            Oh, but it did... You just want to blame the government for your failure in that marketplace.

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

                                                            • icon
                                                              tp (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 3:48am

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

                                                              You just want to blame the government for your failure in that marketplace.

                                                              yeah, but I'm one of the best software developers on the planet, so if the market doesn't work for me, noone has a chance in the market and in reality the market doesn't exists at all.

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

                                                              • icon
                                                                PaulT (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 4:12am

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

                                                                "I'm one of the best software developers on the planet"

                                                                The guy who just claimed that his software would use domain registrations to check the copyright status of work created 5 years before the first domain was registered?

                                                                I somehow doubt it.

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

                                                                • icon
                                                                  tp (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 4:17am

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

                                                                  The guy who just claimed that his software would use domain registrations to check the copyright status

                                                                  sadly I never claimed this.

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

                                                                  • icon
                                                                    PaulT (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 4:42am

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

                                                                    Then what were you claiming here?

                                                                    "if I expect user to create the content with the program i launched an the resulting url is created in 1980, then there might be copyright infringement used."

                                                                    Which URL are you expecting to be created 5 years before the first domain name was issued, and what does that have to do with copyright, as you claim?

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

                                                                • icon
                                                                  tp (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 4:22am

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

                                                                  "I'm one of the best software developers on the planet"
                                                                  I somehow doubt it.

                                                                  How would you know? You never even tried my builder tool, even though it has been available in the page that you've been bashing all the time. If you decide software developer's status using anything else than his finished software quality, then you're doing it wrong. But no, you decided not to even look at it.

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

                                                                  • icon
                                                                    PaulT (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 4:43am

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

                                                                    I looked at it. Your website is shit and it not compatible with any OS I use. You marketing is also hilariously bad, and your claims of what your software supposedly does bears no relationship to reality. So, I have to conclude that you're either a horrible developer or an incompetent designer of such.

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

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2020 @ 6:24am

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

                                                                      The YouTube videos are more of the same, showing animations that were state of the art back in the 1980s. Impressive back then, but nowhere what any computer user today expects.

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

                                                                    • icon
                                                                      tp (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 6:45am

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

                                                                      Your website is shit and it not compatible with any OS I use.

                                                                      So you didnt get it working?

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

                                                                      • icon
                                                                        PaulT (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 7:04am

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

                                                                        No, as I use Linux and MacOS and I'm not going to set up a Windows partition just to look at your software. But, I probably got further than most visitors to your site.

                                                                        Your attempt to change the subject away from your silly claims above is noted, though.

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

                                                                  • icon
                                                                    bhull242 (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 10:31am

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

                                                                    For the record, being doubtful of a claim is an opinion that can be based solely on the claim standing on its own. It’s not an assertion of knowledge at all. You don’t need to prove or disprove anything to have doubt. In the end, doubt is a personal feeling one might have about an assertion.

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

                                                              • icon
                                                                bhull242 (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 10:28am

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

                                                                Honestly, I’m doubtful of your claim because of how pretentious it is and the lack of any evidence supporting it, but let’s pretend that you are “one of the best software engineers on the planet.”

                                                                First off, even under those terms, there are still better software engineers who could potentially succeed where you failed.

                                                                Second, even the best software engineer on the planet may have absolutely no marketing skills whatsoever. If you can’t market your product, it really doesn’t matter how good a product it is; it almost certainly won’t sell.

                                                                Third, let’s look at what a software engineer does. Fundamentally, they are given a problem and some specifications, they analyze those requirements, and develop software accordingly. However, if the problem is judged improperly or there’s a problem with the specifications themselves, then even the best possible software that fits those parameters will fail in the real world due to bad information. In your case, it’s a pitfall or being self-employed since you may not be the best at judging what the market desires in your hypothetical product. Being a great software engineer doesn’t involve any skill in market research. And there’s some evidence to that given that you actually expect that schools will provide web space for kids to store content they make outside of school. As I personally know a number of teachers, I can tell you that that is utterly ridiculous, if only because schools place heavy restrictions on what can be done with school property, which includes this imagined web space. Plus, most schools—especially middle school or younger—don’t teach things like web design. Maybe they should, but even a little market research would disprove that handily.

                                                                Fourth, and this is related to the previous one, being one of the best software engineers doesn’t necessarily come with legal expertise. You have already demonstrated this with your ignorance of how copyright law works. This is relevant because it has led you to designing restrictions into your project in an effort to comply with legal requirements that simply don’t exist.

                                                                So yeah, you haven’t proved anything except possibly your own ineptitude or ignorance. I’d also suggest you look up the Dunning-Kruger effect for why people are skeptical of your claim to be one of the best. Suffice to say, most people who’d claim something like that are nowhere near as skilled as they believe.

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

                                                          • icon
                                                            bhull242 (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 10:02am

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

                                                            I did mention that I heard your explanation. I was stating that it is nonsensical even after you explained it. I wasn’t asking you to try again.

                                                            To reiterate what was said last time, none of what you referred to constitutes the government promising anything or anyone promising you anything that specific, predictions and speculations are not promises, and the government cannot control the market to that extent.

                                                            Also, it’s worth noting that with today’s technology, copying is effectively free. That doesn’t mean paid software cannot succeed, nor does it mean it’s impossible to make money off of free software without engaging in predatory practices. Your personal lack of success does not prove that the market is the problem. The fact that many players do succeed actually indicates that the market isn’t the problem. Therefore, the problem is likely on your end; whether it’s your product, your marketing, your website, or whatever. It could also just be bad luck. Not everyone succeeds on the market; that’s a fact you’re going to have to live with.

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

                                                      • identicon
                                                        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:46am

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

                                                        Original mansion story only expected government to provide plans of a mansion

                                                        And so your new plans are what, exactly? Expecting them to do more in exchange for the fuck all you provided? Two mansions with an army of terracotta gnomes?

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

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2020 @ 4:40pm

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

                                I think you have an even bigger problem, most kids do not have the patience or attention span to undertake even simple animation projects spread over 1 or more months. Teenagers are more likely to undertake such projects, but they want a competent system, such as Blender or Art of Illusion.

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

                                • icon
                                  tp (profile), 11 Jan 2020 @ 6:45pm

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

                                  Teenagers are more likely to undertake such projects, but they want a competent system, such as Blender or Art of Illusion.

                                  We spent our whole life studying how to build the system and now you claim its not competent system? Maybe you can do something better for the kids?

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

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2020 @ 3:25am

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

                                    Maybe you can do something better for the kids?

                                    Why would I? To let you claim that it's too much competition and should be shut down like you think Pixar should be? Fuck that noise.

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

                                    • icon
                                      tp (profile), 12 Jan 2020 @ 5:29am

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

                                      To let you claim that it's too much competition and should be shut down like you think Pixar should be?

                                      I only asked for pixar to make their tools suitable for children. I never said they need to be shut down.

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

                                      • identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2020 @ 6:55am

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

                                        That is like asking Ferrari to make a formula 1 car that can be driven by children.

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

                                        • icon
                                          tp (profile), 12 Jan 2020 @ 6:59am

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

                                          That is like asking Ferrari to make a formula 1 car that can be driven by children.

                                          I'm sure they already implemented this requirement and it's very likely that such thing is available in local amusement park.

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

                                          • identicon
                                            Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2020 @ 4:56pm

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

                                            If it's that likely, then find one.

                                            I won't hold my breath waiting.

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

                                            • icon
                                              tp (profile), 12 Jan 2020 @ 6:00pm

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

                                              If it's that likely, then find one.

                                              This url has a picture of theme park having cars designed for children:
                                              https://www.linnanmaki.fi/fi/laitteet/

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

                                              • identicon
                                                Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2020 @ 7:57pm

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

                                                And can those cars go as fast, as off-road, the same way that Formula 1 cars can?

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

                                              • icon
                                                PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:23am

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

                                                So... a completely different product that's not used in the same way as the main one? That's not what you've just been blathering on about.

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

                                              • icon
                                                bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:05pm

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

                                                It still lacks fundamental features, functions, and usability that you would find in a Formula-1 racecar. The two are not even close to the same market even if you exclude the fact that one is clearly meant for children and the other is very clearly not.

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

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2020 @ 3:27am

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

                                There are bigger problems than this

                                Right, right... you think besides kids not knowing how to use a system that was designed for them to use is the smaller problem.

                                You think kids not using your system is a problem with your system you don't need to worry about.

                                How has this amoeba's original paramecium not won the Darwin awards yet?

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

                          • icon
                            bhull242 (profile), 11 Jan 2020 @ 3:58pm

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

                            You’re missing my main point. While I don’t know with absolute certainty, I would think that it would be impossible to fit a Pixar-quality animation into such a small size. That you expect children of any age to do it is just more absurd.

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

                            • icon
                              tp (profile), 11 Jan 2020 @ 6:06pm

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

                              I would think that it would be impossible to fit a Pixar-quality animation into such a small size.

                              This is why we spent our whole life studying this size vs quality problem in demoscene, and there are significant solutions available in the technology we built recarding this feature.

                              That you expect children of any age to do it is just more absurd.

                              We all used to be children at some point, so we have (different kinds) of experience of how the process should work. And the system we've built would be useful to kids at beginning of high school etc...

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

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2020 @ 3:00am

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

                                And the system we've built would be useful to kids at beginning of high school etc...

                                Kids at that age, and with an interest in animation, will want an ability to produce more than kaleidoscope patterns and rotating cubes etc. Also, Art of Illusion is simple enough for them to use, and allows them to tell stories, rather than just produce pretty pattens, which becomes boring rather quickly.

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

                                • icon
                                  tp (profile), 12 Jan 2020 @ 4:39am

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

                                  Art of Illusion is simple enough for them to use

                                  If you have 30 kids in school class, and 10 of them use blender, another 10 will use art of illusion, then there's still 10 people left to use my system. Plenty of market for my system.

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

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2020 @ 4:56pm

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

                                    then there's still 10 people left to use my system

                                    Better idea, let's not use a system supposedly aimed at kids which the creator admits can't be used by kids.

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

                                    • icon
                                      tp (profile), 12 Jan 2020 @ 5:58pm

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

                                      let's not use a system supposedly aimed at kids which the creator admits can't be used by kids.

                                      You don't trust kids ability to learn new technologies? The old farts are not able to learn new skills, but the kids can learn any kind of spaghetti you throw to them. We developed our system while trusting the kids to figure out the horror.

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

                                      • icon
                                        tp (profile), 12 Jan 2020 @ 6:26pm

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

                                        To continue with this....

                                        Compare my system to youtube -- kids are using it even though google is not providing video editing tools, video cameras, microfones or animation technologies. I.e. they require kids to create all those themselves, before they can post finished videos to youtube.

                                        My system at least provides the tools to do this, even if the tool is slightly difficult to use.

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

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:03am

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

                                          YouTube is about video hosting, not video production. bhull242's already explained this to death. Your insistence on conflating the two areas of focus doesn't make you look smarter. It confirms suspicions that you have no idea what you're talking about.

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

                                          • icon
                                            tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:15am

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

                                            YouTube is about video hosting, not video production.

                                            Why would a company as great as google leave video prouctionn to 3rd parties?

                                            Are they not able to compete in that area?

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

                                            • icon
                                              PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:24am

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

                                              "Why would a company as great as google leave video prouctionn to 3rd parties?"

                                              Because Google's business is not video production.

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

                                              • icon
                                                tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:41am

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

                                                Because Google's business is not video production.

                                                My bet is that they just couldn't get the technology to work.

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

                                            • icon
                                              bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:18pm

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

                                              Google is already in a bunch of different markets: operating systems, web browsers, search engines, cloud hosting of a variety of files, word processors, music streaming, live video streaming, photo sharing, GPS mapping, video hosting, translation software, video game streaming, social media, smart home devices, smart phones, laptops, VR, spreadsheets, slideshows, software application storefronts, searchable texts, etc. They’ve also tried getting into the IAP market and are working on self-driving vehicles, among many other projects. However, there are many markets they don’t delve into—like online references (like Wikipedia), music or video production, or musical recording and editing. Maybe they’ll make video production software in the future, but there’s no pressing need at the moment.

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

                                            • identicon
                                              Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 5:13pm

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

                                              Why would a company as great as Google leave agriculture to 3rd parties?

                                              Are they not able to compete in the area?

                                              Flying Spaghetti Monster, but you're dumber than a sack of rocks.

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

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 1:09am

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

                                          I.e. they require kids to create all those themselves,

                                          Wrong, they let all users of their hosting service select and use whatever tools they prefer, and the kids are doing just fine with the tools that are already available, and are intended for anybody with an interest to use.

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

                                          • icon
                                            tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 1:14am

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

                                            use whatever tools they prefer, and the kids are doing just fine with the tools

                                            So the kids either need to buy $5000 camera equipment and pirate the software required to convert it to video streams that youtube requires?

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

                                            • icon
                                              PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 1:19am

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

                                              "So the kids either need to buy $5000 camera equipment"

                                              Why would they do that rather than using the equipment they already have (laptop, webcam, phones)?

                                              "and pirate the software required to convert it to video streams that youtube requires?"

                                              Why would they do that when there's so many free programs available, some of which may be built into the OS and utility software supplied with their computer?

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

                                              • icon
                                                tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 1:41am

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

                                                Why would they do that rather than using the equipment they already have (laptop, webcam, phones)?

                                                With children as customers, you need to assume that they still do not have all the gadgets that you're used to. Are you assuming that every child on the planet decides to spend their weekly allowance to buy laptops, webcams and phones?

                                                Why would they do that when there's so many free programs available

                                                Again you're talking about children, where parents forget to give the child any money to spend on "free" programs, so the only alternative is to explore the dark web.

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

                                                • icon
                                                  PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 1:55am

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

                                                  "With children as customers, you need to assume that they still do not have all the gadgets that you're used to"

                                                  No, with the real world being what it is, I have to assume that the type of child who would want to create a YouTube video also has a device with a camera installed within their household.

                                                  "Are you assuming that every child on the planet decides to spend their weekly allowance to buy laptops, webcams and phones?"

                                                  No, I'm assuming that they don't have to personally own a device in order to use it, and that the device in question is likely to be the one they already use to watch YouTube.

                                                  Even if not, it's not exactly unrealistic. I personally saved for a year to buy my first computer as a child, a ZX Spectrum, which cost around £125 in 1985 money. A modern child will be able to get a device with a camera for far less money than they if they don't already have one and their allowance is likely to be more than I got.

                                                  Even if you assume that the average child doesn't already have access to a camera, it's hardly a major hurdle for them to get one, even if they don't have the sort of parent who will happily drop some money on a device to encourage their child's creative output.

                                                  "parents forget to give the child any money to spend on "free" programs"

                                                  Again, your fantasy world where people have to spend money on free programs and where legal free programs do not exist, is nothing like the real world the rest of us inhabit.

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

                                                  • icon
                                                    tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:07am

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

                                                    I personally saved for a year to buy my first computer as a child, a ZX Spectrum, which cost around £125 in 1985 money.

                                                    I spent my weekly allowance to get amiga 500. That was awesome computer, much better than zx spectrum. I even created a commercial game using that hardware and got my weekly allowance money back.

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

                                                    • icon
                                                      PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:30am

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

                                                      "I spent my weekly allowance to get amiga 500. That was awesome computer, much better than zx spectrum"

                                                      Nice story. However, your attempt at superiority involves ignoring me mentioning 1985, which is a full 2 years before the Amiga was released. You do have a problem dealing with real world facts when they don't allow you to pretend to be better than you really are, don't you?

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

                                                • icon
                                                  bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:55am

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

                                                  With children as customers, you need to assume that they still do not have all the gadgets that you're used to. Are you assuming that every child on the planet decides to spend their weekly allowance to buy laptops, webcams and phones?

                                                  I have a younger cousin who used his parents’ equipment to make a video and post it online like five years ago. The equipment was pretty decent, too. And since his dad works in software, his house has laptops, webcams, tablets, and smart phones.

                                                  Heck, pretty much every household has at least one smartphone with a camera, including many children (more than I think ought to), and most laptops I’ve seen include a webcam built-in. In fact, most cell phones, even if they aren’t smartphones and including prepaid phones, have a built-in camera. Kids having access to laptops, phones, and cameras is extremely common, and kids owning them isn’t all that rare, either.

                                                  Again you're talking about children, where parents forget to give the child any money to spend on "free" programs, so the only alternative is to explore the dark web.

                                                  1. There are many programs available on the regular internet that are free and don’t charge any money, and a lot of the rest allow essentially unlimited access to many features. Lack of money is not that large an obstacle to finding decent programs on the everyday web that aren’t pirated.

                                                  2. Just because something is available through the dark web—even if it’s only available there—doesn’t make it illegal, illegitimate, dangerous, or pirated. There are perfectly lawful and legitimate reasons to use the dark web. There’s nothing inherently sinister about it. So even if you’re right (and you’re not), that doesn’t really prove anything.

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

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:21am

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

                "huh? they can just pass the keyboard and mouse to the next person who wants to make changes."

                Wow. No wonder your product sucks if your idea of online collaboration involved physically handing over control in order to work.

                "You're assuming some crazy collaboration tool like google docs which is too difficult for children to setup."

                A 5 year old can set up a Google doc in seconds. Sharing features are easy and transparent even if a parent has to help for a few moments to set up the initial sharing. Why is your software so inferior that you can't imagine of allowing the same?

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

                • icon
                  tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:45am

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

                  Why is your software so inferior that you can't imagine of allowing the same?

                  There just isn't any demand for collaboration features. In the whole development time of the technology, noone has mentioned users to want collaboration, so I just assume the feature is not in demand.

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

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:57am

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

                    "There just isn't any demand for collaboration features"

                    Hmmm... who to believe about what people are demanding? You or Pixar?

                    https://renderman.pixar.com/product

                    |Built for Collaboration
                    RenderMan ships with the latest open source tools and comprehensive APIs so you can develop complex collaborative environments, for maximum pipeline flexibility

                    When you, a failure, are saying that collaboration is not necessary and Pixar, a massive success, is using it as a main selling point of their product, it's not hard to see what reality is.

                    "In the whole development time of the technology, noone has mentioned users to want collaboration"

                    I dare say that the tiny sample size of people who both use your software and are engaged enough to take part in future development is not going to give you a wide range of real world requirements.

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

                    • icon
                      tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 1:05am

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

                      to take part in future development is not going to give you a wide range of real world requirements.

                      But you still have no idea how my development process works. Only thing you can do is guess it based on some funny metrics like number of developers in the project. But you have no idea how our requirements process works.

                      It's significantly more complicated than what you think.

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

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 1:18am

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

                        "But you still have no idea how my development process works"

                        This much is true.

                        "Only thing you can do is guess it based on some funny metrics like number of developers in the project"

                        Not true. I can also go on what you state here, the product you reveal for public consumption and various other tells. What that reveals to me is a substandard project led by someone who has a tenuous grasp on the reality of the marketplace.

                        I may be wrong about that, but given the data I have to go on, that's what is suggested to me.

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

                        • icon
                          tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 1:28am

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

                          What that reveals to me is a substandard project led by someone who has a tenuous grasp on the reality of the marketplace.

                          The requirements still hits the exact spot that google failed to implement and where they assumed that 3rd parties need to handle.

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

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 1:34am

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

                            So, the things that people have been doing in their millions since YouTube launched without the need for your product?

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

                            • icon
                              tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 1:47am

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

                              So, the things that people have been doing in their millions since YouTube launched without the need for your product?

                              I already explained that I didn't implement "video" technology what these millions of people are using. The reason is that anyone who does publish software handling video streams(like ffmpeg and mplayer) are taking huge copyright risks when publishing their software on the internet, given that those video software is going to be used for hollywood movie piracy.

                              Thus my software is using 3d/opengl technology. As far as I know, google still doesn't have a solution to let youtube users to create 3d animations. (even though they might be using phone cameras to create video streams)

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

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:03am

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

                                As far as I know, google still doesn't have a solution to let youtube users to create 3d animations

                                That is not an Area of software that Google is interested in. However there are plenty of paid for and free applications that allow users do just that.

                                The reason is that anyone who does publish software handling video streams(like ffmpeg and mplayer) are taking huge copyright risks when publishing their software on the internet

                                And owning a pencil is to have an unauthorised device that allows copyright infringement.

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

                                • icon
                                  tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:10am

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

                                  However there are plenty of paid for and free applications that allow users do just that.

                                  But you have to browse 2 billion web sites before you find one that provides such service.

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

                                  • icon
                                    PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:34am

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

                                    "But you have to browse 2 billion web sites before you find one that provides such service."

                                    Only if you're utterly clueless. The rest of us will find a decent selection of tools on our first Google search, along with articles that help choose the best one for your personal needs.

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

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:38am

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

                                    You could let DuckDuctGo so that for you, and type in 'free animation apps' to find out what is available. The same search works with Google as well.

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

                                • icon
                                  tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:27am

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

                                  And owning a pencil is to have an unauthorised device that allows copyright infringement.

                                  You're thinking of the famous space pens where the pencil development took millions of dollars and the blueprints of that pencil was kept huge secret so that soviets are not into the development. Still soviets solved the same problem using $2 pencil from nearest shop?

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

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 4:16am

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

                                    Yes, and by your standards the pencil should have been banned because it made the space pens look costly and stupid.

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

                                    • icon
                                      tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 6:22am

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

                                      Yes, and by your standards the pencil should have been banned because it made the space pens look costly and stupid.

                                      US laws that space pens are under, might not exist in soviet union.

                                      Even if you managed to import cheap pencils from the soviet union, or use local pencils, the copyright issues are not solved by this.

                                      After spending millions to develop space pens, nasa has clear ownership of the space pen designs and any cheap pencil manufacturers who want to use that design will need to get a (expensive) license from nasa.

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

                                      • icon
                                        PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 6:45am

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

                                        You seem to be labouring under the delusion that people will pay extortionate fees rather than just use the cheap pencils.

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

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 7:07am

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

                                          He does not understand English either, as I said the pencil enabled copyright infringement, not that the design of the pencil itself could be an infringement.

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

                                          • icon
                                            tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 7:18am

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

                                            He does not understand English either, as I said the pencil enabled copyright infringement, not that the design of the pencil itself could be an infringement.

                                            I'm always moving to the direction where there is biggest problems recarding the area which you identified. "enabling copyright infringement" by writing poems isn't the biggest issue with the pen industry. But since you went to pen direction, I need to find where the real problem is located at, and nasa is obviously good direction to go. They were doing awesome software engineering already when moon landing was big, so they have tons of experience with complex software systems. While their rockets sometimes crash and burn, they still have the support of the american people and congress is providing them with taxpayers money regularly even with some failed products.

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

                                            • icon
                                              PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 7:36am

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

                                              ""enabling copyright infringement" by writing poems isn't the biggest issue with the pen industry"

                                              You're confusing yourself again. He was not saying anything about the pen industry, he was saying that you can "pirate" poems with a pencil if you so wish and there's nothing the maker of that pencil nor the author of the poem can do to stop you. Nothing you've said refutes this.

                                              What you're responding to had nothing to do with NASA until you brought it up, but it's interesting that you're obsessing over a decades-old project rather than deal with the current issues that are in the conversation everyone else is having.

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

                                              • icon
                                                tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:08am

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

                                                he was saying that you can "pirate" poems with a pencil if you so wish and there's nothing the maker of that pencil nor the author of the poem can do to stop you.

                                                You're now claiming that the feature of "copyright checking" is impossible to implement? The reality where such thing is actually possible might be nearer than you think. They have already invented the following technologies:
                                                1) 3d pens where computer tracks pen position and outputs correct plastic or content recarding where you move your pen
                                                2) Artificial intelligence will be very likely to be used for copyright checking, i.e. regognizing plagiated text is already used by universities to check student output, and it's only small step forward to do correct copyright checking
                                                3) text editors are perfect place where copyright checking could be integrated

                                                So all the technologies needed for such pen are already available. They simply haven't yet integrated them to do the copyright checking operation, even though there is huge financial benefits from doing so.

                                                There are some issues with copyright checking though:
                                                1) free speech is prevented if systems start to filter out copyrighted works from people's vocabulary
                                                2) much of the text output in the world is never published, but only used for communication between small number of humans, so copyright checking might not make sense for such usage
                                                3) business situations usually need to be considered with copyright issues. It's completely different aspect to do hobby writing than what happens when you have millions of products in the marketplace.

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

                                                • icon
                                                  PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:22am

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

                                                  "You're now claiming that the feature of "copyright checking" is impossible to implement?"

                                                  On a pencil? Erm, yes...

                                                  "They have already invented the following technologies"

                                                  None of which is on a pencil, and none of which can be implemented without greatly increasing the price of a pencil (meaning nobody will buy the ones it's installed in). Even if you managed to somehow ban the sale of a standard pencil, people could make their own quite easily.

                                                  "even though there is huge financial benefits from doing so"

                                                  There really isn't. As with your "millions of devices" idea, there's no realistic benefit of doing any of these things instead of simply accepting that a non-zero rate of piracy always has and always will exist, and adjust your expectation and marketing accordingly.

                                                  "There are some issues with copyright checking though"

                                                  Yes, which is why most sane people aren't trying to do it in the way you keep saying it should be.

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

                                                  • icon
                                                    tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:27am

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

                                                    instead of simply accepting that a non-zero rate of piracy always has and always will exist,

                                                    You simply accept failure than try to solve the problems?

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

                                                    • identicon
                                                      Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:38am

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

                                                      Yes, when the alternative is to destroy human culture to enrich a few companies.

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

                                                      • icon
                                                        tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:59am

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

                                                        Yes, when the alternative is to destroy human culture to enrich a few companies.

                                                        I think after hundred years of copyright laws, there's still no sign of human culture being destroyed. It's "to promote progress" that copyright exists.

                                                        But I don't think you yet understand how serious business copyright issues are. Companies that actually care about users are spending significant amount of resources to implement copyright's limitations properly. You could consider it like a flock of chickens that runs around the house when damage awards of billions of dollars are being introduced to the system. One person's rights to free speech are completely insignificant when money amounts nearing billions are being handled. There are significant human rights issues related to how those billions are handled, and its nothing to be proud of. Whenever you hear companies spending billions on something, there is significant amount of damage that has already happened, and that damage can never be properly recovered and world is much worse off when problems happen in this area.

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

                                                        • identicon
                                                          Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 9:49am

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

                                                          There is this story about copyright maximalism, killing pop music, published on this site today. So yes copyright is killing culture slowly but surely.

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

                                                          • icon
                                                            tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 10:09am

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

                                                            There is this story about copyright maximalism, killing pop music,

                                                            When large companies are building products for large areas of the world, the only guiding principles they can use for implementation is those which are implemented the same way on all those areas. Relying on local rules is a no-go, because it just causes more damage than what it fixes. Thus the companies can only use things like copyright which is supposedly implemented by all the areas in approximately the same way.

                                                            Once you break copyright, you lose the support of these larger companies which can provide significant support for large areas of the world. Are you going to study the laws of physics to find commonality between those areas of the world, or whether you rely on copyright?

                                                            There is significant adverse consiquences related to breaking copyright, i.e. the vendors who produce the products and services have no base they can rely on since every area implements their legal rules different way.

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

                                                            • identicon
                                                              Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 5:10pm

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

                                                              Thus the companies can only use things like copyright which is supposedly implemented by all the areas in approximately the same way

                                                              Not nearly. Copyright doesn't even last the same amount of time in all countries. Works like 1984 by George Orwell are already in the public domain in Australia.

                                                              Once you break copyright, you lose the support of these larger companies

                                                              You seem to be enamored with the idea that copyright is necessary to work with larger companies or that larger companies have a love affair with copyright. That's a shit relationship. Larger companies are all too keen to abandon copyright the moment it inconveniences them. The cases where the RIAA used pictures for their materials without compensating the photographers would be a good start.

                                                              Are you going to study the laws of physics to find commonality between those areas of the world, or whether you rely on copyright?

                                                              Why not? According to you people use YouTube even though it doesn't provide them with 3D modeling software. If you're going to logic leap off the edge of a cliff...

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

                                                        • icon
                                                          bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 3:30pm

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

                                                          Question: How does Microsoft do anything to prevent its tools (Windows, Edge, Office Suite, Notepad, etc.) from being used to commit copyright infringement?

                                                          Also, free speech is actually considered pretty darn important compared to copyright. That’s why satire of a work is considered fair use and is not infringing. Are there some limitations on speech due to copyright? Sure, but there are as many if not more limitations on copyright due to free speech.

                                                          Additionally, I highly doubt that any company or person earned or lost billions of dollars due to any single copyrighted work and/or piracy of a single copyrighted work. That’s pretty absurd. Millions, sure, but billions?

                                                          I’m also unconvinced that the damage done by copyright infringement is, has been, will be, or could be so substantial as to make the world much worse off when there are problems with copyright enforcement. I certainly don’t think that copyright protection is a human right like privacy, free speech, nondiscrimination, voting, medical care, dignity, life, freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc.

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

                                                          • icon
                                                            tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 4:21pm

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

                                                            I highly doubt that any company or person earned or lost billions of dollars due to any single copyrighted work

                                                            oracle vs google java lawsuit has billions damage awards in it, once it gets properly decided. These takes long time to resolve, but in the end they either get their billions, or they dont. At least oracle is trying to get some.

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

                                                            • identicon
                                                              Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 5:07pm

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

                                                              At least oracle is trying to get some.

                                                              Ah, right... Oracle. Your shining example of copyrightability... except that they were caught copying Amazon's API, the same thing they're suing Google for.

                                                              So Oracle owes Amazon money now, right?

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

                                                            • icon
                                                              bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 7:07pm

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

                                                              And I am extremely doubtful about the merits of that lawsuit, so…

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

                                                        • icon
                                                          bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 3:38pm

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

                                                          Question: How does Microsoft do anything to prevent its tools (Windows, Edge, Office Suite, Notepad, etc.) from being used to commit copyright infringement?

                                                          Also, free speech is actually considered pretty darn important compared to copyright. That’s why satire of a work is considered fair use and is not infringing. Are there some limitations on speech due to copyright? Sure, but there are as many if not more limitations on copyright due to free speech.

                                                          Additionally, I highly doubt that any company or person earned or lost billions of dollars due to any single copyrighted work and/or piracy of a single copyrighted work. That’s pretty absurd. Millions, sure, but billions?

                                                          I’m also unconvinced that the damage done by copyright infringement is, has been, will be, or could be so substantial as to make the world much worse off when there are problems with copyright enforcement. I certainly don’t think that copyright protection is a human right like privacy, free speech, nondiscrimination, voting, medical care, dignity, life, freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc. It may be important, but you’re exaggerating just how important it is.

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

                                                          • icon
                                                            tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 3:55pm

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

                                                            Question: How does Microsoft do anything to prevent its tools (Windows, Edge, Office Suite, Notepad, etc.) from being used to commit copyright infringement?

                                                            It's easy, they invented their own file formats like .doc files which nothing else on the planet is using.Thus all word documents on the planet are created in ms word. keeping thing incompatible with rest of the world is easy way to ensure that users created the content themselves.

                                                            Then copy-pasting from word files can be prevented using some flags in the ms word. same with powerpoints.

                                                            Then word has some very evil trickery in it: word's internal data structures are directly reflected to the file format. Thus any programs that can read ms word files must exactly replicate word's internal data structures. However, this cloning of data structures is illegal by copyright laws, so writing software that can read ms word files is not allowed. This is why os/2 was killed basically, they couldn't legally replicate microsoft's word .doc files. Even currently, linux office software has significant problems with microsoft's .doc files, because some operations they need to do are simply illegal. There was some law changes and government tried to unravel microsoft's control over those file formats, but that never was too successful.

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

                                                            • identicon
                                                              Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 5:05pm

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

                                                              Fine, I'll bite. What's stopping me from writing "this is where you can download a free copy of Photoshop, URL here" in Notepad, saving it as a .txt file and sending it to someone else who can open it? Pinkie swears? Imaginary ponies?

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

                                                              • icon
                                                                tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 7:12pm

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

                                                                this is where you can download a free copy of Photoshop, URL here

                                                                nothing stops you from doing it. But you'll just take a risk that photoshop authors will find out about your pirated product catalog offer and sue you for copyright infringement. (obviously the "someone else" lied to you about being yout friend and instead sent your .txt file to photoshop lawyers for cannon fodder)

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

                                                                • identicon
                                                                  Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:43am

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

                                                                  But you'll just take a risk that photoshop authors will find out about your pirated product catalog offer and sue you for copyright infringement.

                                                                  And there's the point everyone here has been trying to hammer into that anvil you use for a brain: nothing inside Notepad itself, or the .txt file format, contributed to copyright protection here. You keep claiming that Microsoft made their file format and software so exclusive it magically protects the copyright of Photoshop. Here the only thing that's stopping piracy of Photoshop going on is a human snitch. And what if the guy isn't a snitch and spreads the word anonymously so people can download Photoshop? How's Notepad's file format exclusivity going to save you then, wise guy?

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

                                                    • icon
                                                      PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:46am

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

                                                      "You simply accept failure than try to solve the problems?"

                                                      Piracy is not necessarily a failure, and given that your suggested "solutions" cause way more problems and losses than just accepting reality, it's best to just live with it.

                                                      Case in point: you suggested that the correct reaction to piracy is to stop people buying the legal version. My suggestion is to build the expected small percentage of actual losses into your revenue projections. It's not hard to see who will get the best long term revenue.

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

                                                      • icon
                                                        tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 10:55am

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

                                                        My suggestion is to build the expected small percentage of actual losses into your revenue projections.

                                                        My suggestion is actually "build enough limitations to your product that piracy becomes impossible".

                                                        there is slight note here, "impossible can be implemented, but there is always some problems while doing it".

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

                                                        • identicon
                                                          Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:23am

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

                                                          "impossible can be implemented, but there is always some problems while doing it".

                                                          As detecting any and all infringement is impossible, so the only guaranteed way of preventing infringement is to prevent the user viewing or creating anything.

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

                                                          • icon
                                                            tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:31am

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

                                                            the only guaranteed way of preventing infringement is to prevent the user viewing or creating anything.

                                                            Or you can create the content yourself from scratch?

                                                            Then expanding from the content you created is easy since you have actually legal content that you can use to build your user interface.

                                                            Who said all content needs to be authored by random trolls on the internet?

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

                                                            • identicon
                                                              Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:12pm

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

                                                              If I am creating content, how do you expect to prevent me infringing on someone copyright using software you developed.

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

                                                              • icon
                                                                tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:23pm

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

                                                                If I am creating content, how do you expect to prevent me infringing on someone copyright using software you developed.

                                                                Well, my software has some concept of "operations that ordinary authors are doing". This includes for example:
                                                                1) creating jpg image using gimp
                                                                2) placing those jpg images to their web space
                                                                3) looking up url to that content
                                                                4) copy-pasting or typing the url to url field
                                                                5) letting my software to load the content.

                                                                With this conceptual model of what user activity is expected, I can do the following checks:
                                                                a) if user loads jpg image from newyorktimes.com and bostonherald.com, then user is not using their own "web space", and thus the access can be discarded. I.e. user is not following the conceptual model of how legimative authors of their own content should work
                                                                b) if user loads jpg image from some other domain than where their homepage is at, then user is again not using their own "web space", and access can be discarded. This allows discarding the content from first access, not after damage has already been done.

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

                                                                • identicon
                                                                  Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:35pm

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

                                                                  If you allow them to bring their own photos into the system, they can bring infringing photos into the system, and according to you, your are then liable to pay $30k.

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

                                                                  • icon
                                                                    tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:46pm

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

                                                                    If you allow them to bring their own photos into the system, they can bring infringing photos into the system,

                                                                    The only way this can happen is by lying to my system and providing invalid homepage address. Then the checks I'm doing are not doing anything. But when my web form asks for homepage address, there is legal requirement to fill in exactly the correct information that is being asked, and thus people who can avoid my checks are already doing illegal operations.

                                                                    My copyright checks are allowed to trust the information that user provides, assuming it has been correctly asked when publishing the information. If I ask homepage address, they need to provide their correct homepage.

                                                                    Once I have necessary information to execute my checks, I can just design those conceptual models of how I expect users to work, and then reject all other use cases.

                                                                    Possible improvements would be checking the photos and files for creation date...

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

                                                                    • icon
                                                                      PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:59pm

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

                                                                      "there is legal requirement to fill in exactly the correct information that is being asked"

                                                                      So, your way to make sure someone isn't wanting to break the law by pirating something is to hope they care about not breaking the law when signing up?

                                                                      "Possible improvements would be checking the photos and files for creation date"

                                                                      Which tells you what about the copyright status, exactly?

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

                                                                      • icon
                                                                        tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 1:09pm

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

                                                                        Which tells you what about the copyright status, exactly?

                                                                        creation date check is useful when my software launches gimp or mspaint for creating the image, but user gives url to some earlier work....

                                                                        if I expect user to create the content with the program i launched an the resulting url is created in 1980, then there might be copyright infringement used.

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

                                                                        • icon
                                                                          bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:29pm

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

                                                                          That would be rather inaccurate. Sometimes people place newer images in older urls, or vice versa. And it’s often for nonshady reasons, too.

                                                                          Though I’d be suspicious of a url from 1980, too, seeing as the internet wasn’t really a thing until the 90s. Or rather, I’d be suspicious of the metadata associated with that url.

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

                                                                          • icon
                                                                            PaulT (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 12:03am

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

                                                                            "Though I’d be suspicious of a url from 1980"

                                                                            I'd be extremely suspicious, since the first domain name was registered in 1985.

                                                                            https://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280090622/The-first-ever-20-domain-names-registered

                                                                            Not that it really matters, as before the invention of the web and the Mosaic browser, the internet was mostly text based and very few people would have been associating images with the domain names at that point even if they had existed.

                                                                            As usual, he's so obsessed with his "perfect" software , he forgets to make it applicable to documented reality.

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

                                                                        • icon
                                                                          PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:10pm

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

                                                                          "creation date check is useful"

                                                                          Not in terms of telling when the original work was created it's not.

                                                                          "but user gives url to some earlier work"

                                                                          So, again you're blindly depending on them telling the truth when your whole system is supposed to catch people who are infringing??

                                                                          "an the resulting url is created in 1980"

                                                                          You're expecting URLs to be created 5 years before the first one in history was registered? You\'re expecting people creating works 9 years before the web was invented to have relevant online presence at the time they created their work?

                                                                          You really are delusional.

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

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 5:02pm

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

                                                                        I'd like to note that Tero has on multiple occasions claimed that having insufficient protection and copyright enforcement should open you up to enough legal consequences to tear you a new asshole.

                                                                        And here we have his system where his highest level of protection is a fucking pinkie swear.

                                                                        Then again this is the same brilliant mind who claims that copyright exists because older works should be nuked off the face of the earth when the copyright expires, so it's not like we're dealing with particularly exceptional brainpower here.

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

                                                                    • icon
                                                                      bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:38pm

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

                                                                      The only way this can happen is by lying to my system and providing invalid homepage address. Then the checks I'm doing are not doing anything.

                                                                      You’re missing the point. If that is the only thing needed to prevent piracy to your satisfaction (or the law’s satisfaction), then your measures are unnecessarily complicated and restrictive. You might as well just have the user sign a legal document that says, “I am not/will not commit copyright infringement using this software.” It will have the exact same effect except that your software wouldn’t be restricted to users who have a homepage or are willing to lie about that even if it adds to the legal problems they’d run into if they get caught. It’s like security theater but with copyright protection.

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

                                                                • icon
                                                                  PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 12:57pm

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

                                                                  "Well, my software has some concept of "operations that ordinary authors are doing"."

                                                                  But, no concept of why.

                                                                  "if user loads jpg image from some other domain than where their homepage"

                                                                  So, you immediately reduce your customer base to people who already own a domain and hosting and/or are willing to set up such things for the express purpose of using your software? Also, preventing professionals from servicing clients whose domains they don't own.

                                                                  That will lose more potential sales than your overreaching crap could ever gain by doing so implementing it. Not to mention - just because I host an image on my domain, that does not necessarily mean I have the rights to do so. How do you check if the photo I uploaded was taken by me or by someone else who didn't give me permission?

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

                                                                  • icon
                                                                    tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 1:30pm

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

                                                                    So, you immediately reduce your customer base to people who already own a domain and hosting

                                                                    Yes, if they ever want to display this in a web page, content needs to acquire urls. I cannot change this feature, since web technologies decided it for me.

                                                                    and/or are willing to set up such things for the express purpose of using your software?

                                                                    urls obviously work with file:// prefix, if you don't need to put it to web page.

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

                                                                    • icon
                                                                      bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:25pm

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

                                                                      I must be misunderstanding something here. It sounds like you require a url for the image in order to upload it to a website based on that url.

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

                                                                      • icon
                                                                        tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:40pm

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

                                                                        It sounds like you require a url for the image in order to upload it to a website based on that url.

                                                                        It's not technically upload operation since meshpage never permanently stores the content behind the url. But it can be called fetch-publish or fetch-display operation.

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

                                                                        • icon
                                                                          bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 5:29pm

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

                                                                          Let me see if I have this right.

                                                                          Someone makes a 3d model or whatever using your software. They then upload it to their homepage (not using your software) and tell your software the URL of this file’s location. Using that URL, your software or website can then allow anyone to be able to view that file using a fetch request through your software or website. Essentially, the idea is to make it so that these files can be accessible using data from a single database while the files themselves are stored by the users on their own server or website or something that you have nothing to do with. Do I have the gist of it?

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

                                                                    • icon
                                                                      bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:30pm

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

                                                                      BTW, that’s not a URL, exactly. That’s a filepath.

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

                                                                    • icon
                                                                      PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:14pm

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

                                                                      " I cannot change this feature, since web technologies decided it for me."

                                                                      Nom, web technology has decided that things like 3rd party image hosting sites are perfectly acceptable. If you're going to reject those and insist customers create bespoke sites at their own expense, that's on you

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

                                                                  • icon
                                                                    tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 1:52pm

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

                                                                    just because I host an image on my domain, that does not necessarily mean I have the rights to do so.

                                                                    Well, obviously these checks built into the software cannot check all instances of copyright infringement. Additionally you also need to manually check all the content that appears to your web page submitted by the users. While I still have low amount of users, the manual checks are feasible and while doing those, I will learn new techniques which can be enforced by the software. Thus when user base grows larger and I acquire more copyright checks which actually works properly, eventually I have system that cannot be broken by users.

                                                                    Its slow incremental process of evaluating which checks are necessary to control your current user base.

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

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 5:00pm

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

                                                                      obviously these checks built into the software cannot check all instances of copyright infringement

                                                                      Therefore those checks are insufficient and, by your own rules, you're liable for copyright infringement lawsuits.

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

                                                                      • icon
                                                                        tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 6:56pm

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

                                                                        Therefore those checks are insufficient

                                                                        thats why it still needs manual checking of all the content that gets posted to the web page.

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

                                                                        • identicon
                                                                          Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 8:01pm

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

                                                                          It's adorable that you think this counts as a solid rebuttal.

                                                                          Copyright enforcement often claims that manual checking of all content is insufficient. It's slower than machines, which is why they enjoy algorithm-based DMCAs. Manual checking is also a great source of copyright enforcement mistakes, which on several counts you've defended their wrongful suing of children because the enforcement powers they have are insufficient, therefore they make mistakes.

                                                                          So, once more with feeling. Meshpage has insufficient copyright protection. Tero Pulkinnen has claimed that anything with insufficient copyright protection must be destroyed, or the owner must pay millions of dollars. Therefore, Tero Pulkinnen must remove Meshpage or pay millions of dollars.

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

                                                                • icon
                                                                  bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:46pm

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

                                                                  So someone working with the NYT or Boston Herald or whatever other parts of the internet you classify as a legitimate author’s “own web space” (which normal people would call a web site or possibly domain) or licensing content from such a “web space” would be unable to use your software to work with content they created or have permission to use from the ones who created it.

                                                                  It also means that a person would not be able to upload something that they originally uploaded to, say, DeviantArt using your software.

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

                                                                  • icon
                                                                    tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:55pm

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

                                                                    So someone working with the NYT or Boston Herald or whatever other parts of the internet you classify as a legitimate author’s “own web space”

                                                                    No it doesnt work like that. It only checks if two separate sites are being used.

                                                                    People who have two domains and want to use both at the same time might have problems with the check.

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

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 4:59pm

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

                                                                      Chalk that up to you once again having no fucking idea what you're ranting about...

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

                                                                    • icon
                                                                      bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 5:33pm

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

                                                                      So it doesn’t check to see, “Is this domain likely to be used by the average user?”, just whether the homepage and file location and metadata are, in your view, consistent?

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

                                                                • icon
                                                                  bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:54pm

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

                                                                  Actually, why do you expect children to have a homepage to begin with, but not a laptop, phone, webcam, or some other camera? I know a lot more children who own laptops, phones, webcams, and/or expensive cameras than ones who have their own domain and hosting for their own homepage, and most of those who do have a homepage are probably more likely to have their own phone or laptop with a camera, too. Even among adults, more people are going to have phones with cameras, laptops with webcams, or expensive cameras than those with their own website.

                                                                  The more you explain about your software, the more confused I get about your intended market, what your software is intended to do, or both.

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

                                                                  • icon
                                                                    tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 3:03pm

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

                                                                    why do you expect children to have a homepage to begin with

                                                                    Web technologies give 3 alternatives:
                                                                    1) upload content to web server
                                                                    2) don't use external files at all
                                                                    3) store urls and do fetch-display during web request

                                                                    I'm using the alternative (3), because (1) requires me to store other people's jpg files in my server, and (2) is too limited. So alternative (3) is suitable for my technology.

                                                                    This requires users to have their own web storage space.

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

                                                                    • icon
                                                                      bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 5:49pm

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

                                                                      Okay, but that doesn’t actually answer my question. I totally understand why, of those three options, that’s what you would choose… if you weren’t focused on marketing this to children. I was asking why you would expect children to have web storage space, especially when you also expected your child users would likely not have a laptop, webcam, or phone.

                                                                      And that’s what’s confusing me about this whole thing (well, one of them anyways): you say you want to focus on making this accessible children, and you say the part of your software that makes it stand out from its competitors so people would want to use it and not some other piece of software is that you’re trying to make it highly accessible for average users, particularly children. However, you also impose all these restrictions that would definitely reduce accessibility, not to mention usability or usefulness. In most cases, you say it’s to implement copy-protection because you think it’s legally required, but a) it’s not, b) some of the measures you’ve chosen don’t seem like they’d actually reduce piracy by any substantial measure, especially when compared to the legitimate uses that would be reduced or prevented (though even excluding that they still seem extremely ineffective), and c) some measures are needlessly restrictive in that less-restrictive measures are available that would be equally effective both in preventing or reducing piracy and in preventing legal liability (even under your idea of legal liability for copyright infringement).

                                                                      I’m also confused about why you would need to be accessing user content online at all if online collaboration isn’t an option and you aren’t hosting the files yourself.

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

                                                                      • icon
                                                                        tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 10:00pm

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

                                                                        I was asking why you would expect children to have web storage space,

                                                                        creating web pages is probably something they teach at school nowadays.
                                                                        I expect this to happen with school's web space.
                                                                        So the children has already experience how to use these isp's systems.
                                                                        Its another matter if the parent have provided web space for the children.

                                                                        less-restrictive measures are available that would be equally effective both in preventing or reducing piracy

                                                                        what measures would these be? I can always implement new techniques if they actually help with removing liability about 3rd party content

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

                                                                        • icon
                                                                          PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:16pm

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

                                                                          "I expect this to happen with school's web space."

                                                                          But, you just said that you'd reject images hosted on domains the customer does not own, hence by definition you'd be rejecting all of those kids' pictures.

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

                                                                        • identicon
                                                                          Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:18pm

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

                                                                          creating web pages is probably something they teach at school nowadays.
                                                                          I expect this to happen with school's web space

                                                                          This might surprise you, but education policies are generally not built upon the business expectations of some talentless hack nobody.

                                                                          I can always implement new techniques if they actually help with removing liability about 3rd party content

                                                                          The new technique is nothing, because nothing will stop copyright fanatics like you from bitching about 3rd party content.

                                                                          You can choose whether to spend nothing and have nobody notice Meshpage, or spend millions of dollars (which I might add could be spent on an actual mansion) and have nobody notice Meshpage. Guess which option is less expensive.

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

                                                            • icon
                                                              bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:01pm

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

                                                              There is no way to give a user tools to create something from scratch without also giving them tools to make a copy of something (even if indirectly) if the user has the ability to view that something and it would be possible to create that something using the same tools, and there is no way to prevent tools that allow one to make a copy of something while also preventing any and all—or even a majority—of copyright infringement that would otherwise be possible using your tools. Therefore, the only way to prevent your tools from being used to infringe on copyright completely (or nearly so) is to prevent or heavily restrict users from using your tools to view things or create things, even from scratch.

                                                              Similarly, there is no way to ensure that random internet trolls won’t have access to your tools without restricting legitimate users.

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

                                                              • icon
                                                                tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:22pm

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

                                                                Therefore, the only way to prevent your tools from being used to infringe on copyright completely (or nearly so) is to prevent or heavily restrict users from using your tools to view things or create things,

                                                                The checks do not need to exactly follow the legal borders. It's not illegal to build limitations that are stricter than the legal limits. It's only copyright minimalist view that breaks the whole thing, when they want to "utilize" the full power of the technology space. Users just get confused if you give them full power of what programmers can do. Instead you need to find reasonable limitations which make the software easy to use while still preserving some of the powerful operations. Thus there's no reason to allow copyright infringements to happen.

                                                                this might mean things like "not using movie files" or "not allowing all urls" or "uploading content only from your own computer" or some other such technique. Of course powerusers would like to rewrite their own protocol stack for your program, but propably those users are rare.

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

                                                                • identicon
                                                                  Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:34pm

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

                                                                  Why should you impose any restriction on users, especially if they prevent them doing things that they are legally entitled to do?

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

                                                                  • icon
                                                                    tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 2:53pm

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

                                                                    especially if they prevent them doing things that they are legally entitled to do?

                                                                    I don't need to support all use cases that users can think of.
                                                                    copyright infringement is just one use case that I don't want to support.

                                                                    there are other such things
                                                                    1) pouring cola to your keyboard and watching the software fail in smoke
                                                                    2) movie files are not supported because I think they are too dangerous
                                                                    3) I don't support rendering .blend or .3ds files because they're too proprietary
                                                                    4) I don't support uploading to facebook, twitter or instagram
                                                                    5) I don't create log files and post them to reddit regularly
                                                                    6) I don't spam people with marketing emails
                                                                    7) I don't use rss feeds to publish new software versions

                                                                    etc, there are tons of things that I simply dont support, even though many users might want to use those features.

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

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 4:58pm

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

                                                                      Then don't piss and moan when they don't use your software, dumbass.

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

                                                                    • icon
                                                                      PaulT (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:17pm

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

                                                                      " there are tons of things that I simply dont support"

                                                                      Which is why nobody wants to use your feature=poor software and use your competitors instead.

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

                                                                • icon
                                                                  bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 5:18pm

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

                                                                  You’re missing the point.

                                                                  First of all, did you know that people can, from a “blank canvas”, so to speak, create pretty darn accurate copies of still images? So long as they have a tool to view the original and a tool to create something, they can make an exact or near-exact copy of the original image. Not to mention the “screen capture” feature most modern devices with a screen and internet connection have. Text files can be copied in almost exactly the same way, only easier.

                                                                  For movies or sound recordings, even under impossibly perfect copy-protection, we have these amazing inventions known as the camera and the microphone that can be used to record anything we can see and/or hear.

                                                                  “But,” you say, “I only allow certain file formats to be used, and it’s for animations!” However, that’s not enough. People could painstakingly replicate the original animation manually. People do that all the time. After all, an animation or movie (excluding sound) is fundamentally just a bunch of still images displayed one after another in very quick succession, often with sound added. Hell, they could even just do a simple copy-and-paste or downloaded copy of an animation done by someone else in the required file format, maybe make a few minor, nontransformative changes or manipulate the metadata to get around your other checks, and done! One pirated copy that your software cannot detect.

                                                                  Additionally, since everything that the computer does gets sent to certain memory banks at some point in a fairly predictable manner, it’s possible to reverse engineer any program run by your computer or any nonexecutable file displayed by your computer.

                                                                  And nearly all of this is done using basic tools. Much of it can be done using only tools to create content from a blank file (not from an existing file and without the basic operations of cut, copy, and paste) and tools to view preexisting, copyrighted content (again without the typical operations of cut, copy, or paste). Others relax those rules slightly. Some involve the copy-protection you specify; others don’t.

                                                                  My only point was to demonstrate how fundamentally impossible it is to restrict copyright infringement without restricting users’ ability to create and view content. Even under unrealistically restrictive scenarios using impossible copy-protection measures, it’s still able to be circumvented. And of course, the users will notice these restrictions, especially since other programs that do something similar do not have such restrictions.

                                                                  Sure, there is no legal requirement to match the bounds of the law exactly, but the legal requirements on ISPs and makers of software regarding handling of copyright with regards to third-party content are much broader than the bounds of the law regarding direct copyright infringement, and the financial incentive generally pushes closer to the boundary of the law than you think. There is no financial or legal incentive (at least right now in the US) to impose any copyright-enforcement measures in any of their software that handle third-party content than Google does, and that’s nowhere near what you are demanding. For one thing, copyright-based upload filters are not used by the vast majority of ISPs, and the law absolutely doesn’t require them
                                                                  at all.

                                                                  But anyways, my point was that legitimate users will notice a negative impact from any copy-protection or copyright-enforcement measures implemented by software that handles third-party content if such measures have a strong impact on piracy. It’s unavoidable.

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

                                                                  • icon
                                                                    tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 9:08pm

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

                                                                    For one thing, copyright-based upload filters are not used by the vast majority of ISPs, and the law absolutely doesn’t require them at all.

                                                                    Law doesnt require upload filters but it requires some kind of copyright check. It's companies own issue how they want that copyright check to implement. Usually it has two elements:
                                                                    1) software based limitations that make amount of manual checking smaller
                                                                    2) manual checking that examines every work and finds out original authors

                                                                    This is the same pattern that programming languages use for ensuring correctness of software:
                                                                    1) type checking checks some of the rules automatically
                                                                    2) manual testing will find rest of the problems
                                                                    Every software developer knows this pattern and its easy to implement for
                                                                    all known software, and it ensures perfect results both in software correctness and also in copyright area. Thus legal eagles can require software vendors to check the published products against copyright infringement and only the incompetent fools cannot make the system work perfectly.

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

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 10:52pm

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

                                                                      Law doesnt require upload filters

                                                                      That lie didn't fly when Article 17 was passed and it's not going to fly now, bro.

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

                                                                      • icon
                                                                        bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:14pm

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

                                                                        I’m talking about US law. I’m not touching EU law.

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

                                                                        • icon
                                                                          tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:18pm

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

                                                                          I’m talking about US law. I’m not touching EU law.

                                                                          copyright is supposed to be the same all over the world. USA has made all countries accept all kinds of negotiation results, mostly because hollywood interests are also outside usa borders...

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

                                                                          • identicon
                                                                            Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:51pm

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

                                                                            copyright is supposed to be the same all over the world

                                                                            And yet, it isn't.

                                                                            I know that tears a deep gash in the garbage dump you use for a heart, but it really isn't.

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

                                                                          • icon
                                                                            bhull242 (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 10:39am

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

                                                                            Regardless, copyright law is not the same across all borders, especially after the EU Copyright Directive was passed, so it really doesn’t matter what’s supposed to be the case. We’re dealing with real laws in the real world in this reality, not whatever reality you seem to have come from.

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

                                                                        • identicon
                                                                          Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:38pm

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

                                                                          Fair, not that it actually dissuades the point.

                                                                          If the US copyright fuckbois tried to argue for an Article 17 system, you can bet your back teeth they'd insist upload filters were optional if they thought it'd win them support.

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

                                                                    • icon
                                                                      bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:18pm

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

                                                                      We’ve already had this conversation, too. I pointed out that US copyright law does not require such things (and by the way, 1 involves upload filters and 2 is just impossible to do at scale and completely unreasonable). I showed you case law that made it clear that US law doesn’t require such things. I gave examples to show that these ideas aren’t actually used in practice by major companies. I’m not litigating this issue again unless you have something actually new to work with.

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

                                                                    • icon
                                                                      bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:44pm

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

                                                                      Then I guess literally every ISP (like YouTube) that handles third-party content was developed by incompetent fools because absolutely none of them do that.

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

                                                                      • icon
                                                                        tp (profile), 13 Jan 2020 @ 11:56pm

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

                                                                        that handles third-party content was developed by incompetent fools because absolutely none of them do that.

                                                                        thats why they need to do upload filters and contentID systems to keep hollywoo lawyers happy. While hollywood has special access to youtube's system and can reject other people's videos via some content id hashes, ordinary youtube authors do not have that luxury. This means those authors gets ripped off by youtube when youtube's community takes anything that can be displayed on computer screen and turns it to videos for youtube community's enjoyment and authors have no way other than sending DCMA letters to youtube to take down the violators.

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

                                                                        • identicon
                                                                          Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2020 @ 12:58am

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

                                                                          thats why they need to do upload filters

                                                                          And that's not what you said several replies ago:

                                                                          Law doesnt require upload filters

                                                                          I mean, we already knew you were a lying sack of human and animal excrement, so it's not like this was surprising, but I suppose another demonstration that copyright supporters are gorram fucking batshit insane is always nice even if it is preaching to the rational.

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

                                                                          • icon
                                                                            tp (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:07am

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

                                                                            thats why they need to do upload filters
                                                                            Law doesnt require upload filters

                                                                            These both can be true at the same time, if the following information is taken into account:
                                                                            1) it's site maintainer's own decision how they want to implement the necessary copyright checks
                                                                            2) some sites actually want to do copyright filter instead of manually going through submissions
                                                                            3) there is no requirement for upload filters in the law, because other alternatives also exist

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

                                                                            • icon
                                                                              tp (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 1:27am

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

                                                                              to continue this, check this web site: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/faq/frequently-asked-questions-copyright-reform

                                                                              It has the following text:
                                                                              Will the directive impose upload filters online?

                                                                              No. The text of the political agreement does not impose any upload filters nor does it require user-uploaded platforms to apply any specific technology to recognise illegal content.

                                                                              Under the new rules, certain online platforms will be required to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders - for example, music or film producers - for the use of music, videos or other copyright protected content. If licences are not concluded, these platforms will have to make their best efforts to ensure that content not authorised by the right holders is not available on their website. The “best effort” obligation does not prescribe any specific means or technology.

                                                                              Also, it will only apply in cases where the online platforms covered by the Directive and the rightholders have not concluded licensing agreements for the use of copyright protected content and only for specific content identified by rightholders. The Directive explicitly prohibits Member States from imposing on online platforms a general monitoring obligation of the content uploaded by the users.

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