You don’t need scientific rigor to debunk the lies of someone who believes
So you again confirm that you didn't bother to read the actual text, but instead you have some assumptions of what I believe.
I have a moral obligation to expose the lies of copyright trolls like you.
So you decided beforehand that the argument is all lies, even without actually reading the text. Basically your techniques are lacking scientific rigor.
I license my music with a Creative Commons license so if someone used youtube-dl to download my original music they aren’t doing anything illegal.
If the comment field of your video doesn't explicitly give a license to the material, it can be assumed that youtube's license is the only thing available, and thus downloading the music files is outside of youtube's system is forbidden. The authors who post youtube videos are giving google a license to publish the material, but the terms of that license only allow publish actions within the youtube system, i.e. any attempt to move it outside of youtube runs into legal problems.
Son that’s not how any of that works.
Supposedly they can't get a truthful answers if the defendant is like a windvane -- changing his position from one day to another in random manner. Thus their solution is to ask for defenses beforehand, before the plaintiff have specified the exact accusations. Then defendants are only allowed to rely on defenses that were known before the lawsuit started.
Basically dealing with lying bastards just takes too long time and that time is away from honest defendants.
Once those videos are inside youtube's system, downloading them is not allowed, as youtube-dl found out/were DMCAd to disable the service.
Well, transferring these hollywood movies to the competitor isn't really allowed.
Gimp costs nothing, has a windows version, and is comparable in features to Photoshop, yet people still pay for Photoshop.
Photoshop was in the paid market first, and first mover always have advantage over latecomers.
youtube is clearly a competitor to hollywood movies. qed.
You realize Meshpage is your project which you willingly priced at $0 to download, right? If you wanted to forbid placing zero price on digital works why not charge money for Meshpage?
well, it doesn't work if rest of the market doesn't do the same thing. If I increase the prices, the customers will just flee to some other 3d engine. The barrier for entry for moving money around is large enough that if anyone is allowed to sell product with zero price, everyone will need to do the same or not see their products in use at all. The customer's first instinct when they see a paywall is to just move to different project.
5) What about all the videos taken using phones and cameras. YouTube, TikTok, Vimeo, etc. are enabled by mp4, and most of the content is non infringing and free to watch.
youtube-dl proved that it's illegal to download the files from the youtube. You are only allowed to watch the video via youtube platform, but you're not allowed to move the files to other platforms => making a mp4 decoder because of youtube's files is not helping anything.
dunno how the other platforms work, but they're not significant enough to matter.
Cameras are interesting non-infringing use, but its not significant enough that it would make it worthwhile to take a risk with pirates. Also I've already implemented over 100 million cameras, so already covered that use case pretty well, no need to be ashamed of what I've accomplished in that area.
selling points for Meshpage is the fact that he intentionally prevents certain popular file formats like .mp4s because – according to him – it’s an anti-piracy/pro-copyright feature.
mp4's are like double-failure:
1) you need to implement it the exact same way as all other mp4 implementations to keep files compatible
2) once you get files compatible, pirated hollywood movies are also compatible, making it awesome for pirates
3) the mp4 decoders are existing software pieces that shouldn't be modified -- all you can do with them is copyright infringement
4) the decoders are also patented
5) it's pretty much impossible to license the content that everyone wants to watch with mp4 decoders: hollywood movie licenses are simply not available.
So it's like failure on top of a failure.
Wrong, the first option on the import and export menus is collada,
It doesn't matter if one of the supported file formats supports shaders. It needs to be available in all the supported file formats, including .obj/.mtl files, gltf files, stl files, etc.
Noone cares if some collada has shader support included, when noone is using collada. Basically the shaders are relevant in all the supported export formats, and if you cannot get the shader out from the blender's data structures, then it's next to useless.
and the ability to import and export standard file formats exist?
Blender simply cannot export the shaders that they're using to render the scenes.
While meshpage don't have this feature either, you cannot claim that export features are complete in any of the available frameworks.
Why would anybody use the walled garden that is meshpages when free alternatives with much more power
meshpage isn't really a walled garden. While it supports some of RIAA/MPAA requirements about trackability of copyright infringers and prevents use cases where one imported bitmap comes from new york times and next one from boston herald, you cannot really say it's a walled garden.
Every piece of software has limitations inherent of the selected technologies and environments where it is available at. While meshpage chooses some specific environments to support, all software related technologies have these same limitations and if your hardware can only render 6 million triangles before falling back to 40 fps, meshpage or unity or unreal engine cannot really do anything to this limitation, and only solution is to wait for better hardware to appear.
The limitations you see are not really caused by the walled garden classification of meshpage, but are inherent of the hardware platform that meshpage is running on.
While you can always argue that other frameworks are getting better result from the same hardware, I don't think it's valid argument to claim that it's caused by walled garden.
that which has been created does not always have value in itself,nor does creating something guarantee that it has value for other people.
The scenes on lord of the rings/minas tirith castle is just next version of what the children can create with sand on the beach. the LOTR castles have a valuation going in millions, and thus we have found example where your analysis is failing. You shouldn't focus on how horrible sand castles children can create, but instead you should encourage them to improve their castle creation skills and soon you'll have beautiful castles worth millions of bucks being displayed in successful blockbuster movie generating money like no other castle on the planet.
This is how meshpage is doing. While the original 3d models were worse than children's sand castles, incremental updates to the software keep improving the output until the beauty is worth millions of bucks.
A sand castle can be a work of art, or an ugly pile of damp sand. Neither have much value because the next tide will erase them, but one gives a greater satisfaction to its creator.
Take your camera to the beach then? Once you click the record button, copyright is assigned to you and you can sell beautiful images of sand castles to the local travel agency and get your pictures on front of thousands of global tourists that would like to travel to your city. Some compensation is expected from such a service, so the images are pretty valuable.
The caveat is that next year your city will be full of idiotic tourists that get ran over by a tram. And then you need to handle their souvenirs and create products for the tourist industry, but that's what you get for having cool beach somewhere near.
take snippets from blockbuster movies and create short/fast movies from it.
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, > and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Purpose and character is "moving the content from authorised distribution channel to pirate channel"
Nature of copyrighted work is "blatant ripoff from blockbuster movie with little original content"
The amount and substantiality of the portition taken is "fast movie ripped off all the important events in the movie without contributing anything original"
Effect on the potential market: "moving the content to a competitor obviously hurts original creators"
How exactly you can claim these facts give rise to proper fair use defense?
but do purchase the creations of some creative people.
But for some reason megaupload jokers cannot do that same thing?
the jokers in the RIAA and MPA got nice mansions and drunken parties
The difference between RIAA/MPAA's drunken parties compared to the megaupload's similar parties is that RIAA/MPAA actually created the content they publish.
Being a copyright owner gives them some priviledges that other people simply does not have. drunken parties is one of the perks involved.
It's the creation process of copyrighted works that gets copyright protection. You should tell the jokers at megaupload that they should setup proper content creation pipeline and create the content they publish from scratch.
copyright advocates and supporters have yet to explain why an extended length of copyright beyond the average human lifespan is necessary to get creators to create anything
the length of the copyright needs to be so long that an author who spends his time creating useful stuff for society to consume, will recoup the investment spent on it. If disney invests millions of dollars and their animations are displayed all over the world including finland, but disney as a company is losing money on the long term for the activity, then copyright term is the only thing that needs to be changed.
Given that meshpage has so far got $48 for 10 years of work, it means that copyright term needs to be longer than 10 years. Author of meshpage has spent thousands of euros for purchasing computers and other equipment to keep development activities ongoing, and spent countless of hours time for the activity, but real compensation isn't here yet. Fix the compensation and you'll get shorter copyright term.
So if you want copyright term to be shorter, you should focus your efforts to fixing the business environment for copyrighted works. If authors (in average) do not get compensation for the effort they spend under copyright laws, the copyright term will become longer and longer.