Creating Mesh of Copyrighted Characters

[Bouttime Whybrow]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Chaos Saeed wrote:

The way I see it, I'm really not going to do any harm, if anything it may help promote their company. I undersatnd when people do things like pirate software, or movies and music and that takes away profits. But here in SL, unless they establish themselves here, I won't be taking anything from them. So I doubt they will mind much.

---

 

You are taking away profits as much as you are when downloading music or anything like that.

a - you illegally obtain the works

b - chances are if you asked the IP owner you'd have to pay

c - you get to enjoy something you're not allowed to, since you stole it

Now if they mind much? chances are they don't, but it's not something you can simply take for a fact.

---

that only makes sense to you because you accept the validly of the rules in place. how about you provide some substance rather than citing chapter and verse?

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Bouttime Whybrow wrote:

 

in a world without copyrights, will artists stop being artists?

---

 No

---

will people not engage their imagination and produce things for the sheer stimulation of it? yes they will because humans will always be human.

---

Agreed

---

and people will pay for it because they want it.

---

Even if people can get their hands on it for free if it is completely legal and therefor undoubtedly a lot easier than it is now? I very much doubt many people would actually pay as much as a single cent for the items. People will search for the cheapest when they buy a tv or fridge. If they can get one for free they won't go to the store and pay for the exact same thing.

So would there still be creation? ofcourse...but those creators would have to put in more of their own time and money. I don't make a lot of money from SL, nor do I want to. I never expected to either, as you say it's for the fun of it. But if I had to pay for SL rent out of my own pocket, rather than revenues, I would close my store within a heartbeat and lose my island where I can build or have fun. If I wanted to keep my island and store..well I should make it a free marketplace with a donation box in your perfect world...it wouldn't break the bank, but I would have to stop doing other things I can now afford or I'd have to work more....leaving less time for content creation.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

So tell me how many of the Beatles applied for wellfare...and give me a picture of the car Prince has to live in... They are overpayed no matter how much money the industry has made off them.

[Bouttime Whybrow]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Bouttime Whybrow wrote:

 

in a world without copyrights, will artists stop being artists?

---

 No

---

will people not engage their imagination and produce things for the sheer stimulation of it? yes they will because humans will always be human.

---

Agreed

---

and people will pay for it because they want it.

---

Even if people can get their hands on it for free if it is completely legal and therefor undoubtedly a lot easier than it is now? I very much doubt many people would actually pay as much as a single cent for the items. People will search for the cheapest when they buy a tv or fridge. If they can get one for free they won't go to the store and pay for the exact same thing.

So would there still be creation? ofcourse...but those creators would have to put in more of their own time and money. I don't make a lot of money from SL, nor do I want to. I never expected to either, as you say it's for the fun of it. But if I had to pay for SL rent out of my own pocket, rather than revenues, I would close my store within a heartbeat and lose my island where I can build or have fun. If I wanted to keep my island and store..well I should make it a free marketplace with a donation box in your perfect world...it wouldn't break the bank, but I would have to stop doing other things I can now afford or I'd have to work more....leaving less time for content creation.

---

then why do people still buy photoshop and tickets to movies since they can in a very real way get it for free?

its not because of the law as many who pay can get away with it. its because you can't get the full adobe experience or watch it as the creators intended it to be watch.

you would close your shop but you fail to realize you will still have customers because YOU can't be copied. will some buy the copy? yes, but those would have likely never bought yours to begin with. you will always be able to eat and live a good life. that also why you don't see major SL creators in here moaning about being pirated, because they know its them that has the power not the botters.

[Bouttime Whybrow]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

So tell me how many of the Beatles applied for wellfare...and give me a picture of the car Prince has to live in... They are overpayed no matter how much money the industry has made off them.

---

 

if they were over paid then what are the corporations that stole from them?

the money was generated. who takes what is the point in that example. being over paid has nothing to do with it.

if they didn't deserve the money, the empty suits deserve it even less.

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Bouttime Whybrow wrote:

then why do people still buy photoshop and tickets to movies since they can in a very real way get it for free?

---

If I had been able to get my design software for free legally, I wouldn't have payed 1000s of dollars for it. I would have the exact same experience, it's a copy afterall. There would be less development, if any, still that wouldn't change my mind about it. Now if I would use illegal versions of that very software, which I can easily get my hands on in a matter of hours, I would be facing that amount I payed now times 5 in fines. I've seen it happen first hand, it's not pretty.

Movie tickets? yes you can watch a movie in your living room for free, but it's not the same as a movie theater.

---

you would close your shop but you fail to realize you will still have customers because YOU can't be copied. will some buy the copy? yes, but those would have likely never bought yours to begin with. you will always be able to eat and live a good life. that also why you don't see major SL creators in here moaning about being pirated, because they know its them that has the power not the botters.

---

I think you fail to realise that if my items are free to copy in a legal way, people will hand them out for free in my own store and there's nothing I can do about it, or they'd put it on the marketplace, with my name on it as original creator.."Here you can get Kwakkelde Kwak's items for free!". Since it's not legal to copy and distribute other peoples items, there's a small market for it, tucked away in a corner of the basement of SL, not in the open.

People who create one-offs, like complete sims that are sold only once will have less issues with it than people selling small items that are ment to generate small amounts of money over a long period of time.

 

---

if they were over paid then what are the corporations that stole from them?

the money was generated. who takes what is the point in that example. being over paid has nothing to do with it.

if they didn't deserve the money, the empty suits deserve it even less.

---

It simply means the artists didn't think things through, that's not the fault of the system. I agree the "suits" are even less entitled to being overpaid than the artists. But at the time the contracts were on the table, it apparantly seemed like a good idea to sign them. Without the record company, the artists would have had needed a lot more time to get recognised, if ever. Nowadays that problem is a lot smaller anyway, since people can use other media than LP's produced by big companies.

 

 

[Bouttime Whybrow]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Bouttime Whybrow wrote:

then why do people still buy photoshop and tickets to movies since they can in a very real way get it for free?

---

If I had been able to get my design software for free legally, I wouldn't have payed 1000s of dollars for it. I would have the exact same experience, it's a copy afterall. There would be less development, if any, still that wouldn't change my mind about it. Now if I would use illegal versions of that very software, which I can easily get my hands on in a matter of hours, I would be facing that amount I payed now times 5 in fines. I've seen it happen first hand, it's not pretty.

Movie tickets? yes you can watch a movie in your living room for free, but it's not the same as a movie theater.

---

you would close your shop but you fail to realize you will still have customers because YOU can't be copied. will some buy the copy? yes, but those would have likely never bought yours to begin with. you will always be able to eat and live a good life. that also why you don't see major SL creators in here moaning about being pirated, because they know its them that has the power not the botters.

---

I think you fail to realise that if my items are free to copy in a legal way, people will hand them out for free in my own store and there's nothing I can do about it, or they'd put it on the marketplace, with my name on it as original creator.."Here you can get Kwakkelde Kwak's items for free!". Since it's not legal to copy and distribute other peoples items, there's a small market for it, tucked away in a corner of the basement of SL, not in the open.

People who create one-offs, like complete sims that are sold only once will have less issues with it than people selling small items that are ment to generate small amounts of money over a long period of time.

---

no you do not get the same adobe experience, you cannot go to them with a problem, you cannot openly state you use PS, you can never divulge how you made your images. same as in a copyfree world, people will know you hijacked someone else's work and have the ensuing stigma. and more to the point nor can you never offer any help because you don't know how since you copied rather than created.

it's not the same as a theater? exactly my point. added value that can't be stolen.

netflix does just fine in a world where the same product can be had for free. why? because it's better to deal with them than counterfeiters. and some people will always steal regardless of the system, copyright or copyfree.

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Bouttime Whybrow wrote:

no you do not get the same adobe experience, you cannot go to them with a problem, you cannot openly state you use PS, you can never divulge how you made your images. same as in a copyfree world, people will know you hijacked someone else's work and have the ensuing stigma. and more to the point nor can you ever offer any help because you don't know how since you copied rather then created.

---

Exactly.. so that is why it is a GOOD thing the works are protected. Now if it was legal to copy everything, you could ask Adobe for help, you could openly state you use it, you could tell people how you created the pictures, you wouldn't have hijacked anything...etc.

---

it's not the same as a theater? exactly my point. added value that can't be stolen.

---

So if it was free to copy movies in theater quality, you would only pay the theater who offers the added value. The producers and everyone else involved in the making of the movie would get... well nothing.

 

 

 

[Bouttime Whybrow]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Bouttime Whybrow wrote:

no you do not get the same adobe experience, you cannot go to them with a problem, you cannot openly state you use PS, you can never divulge how you made your images. same as in a copyfree world, people will know you hijacked someone else's work and have the ensuing stigma. and more to the point nor can you ever offer any help because you don't know how since you copied rather then created.

---

Exactly.. so that is why it is a GOOD thing the works are protected. Now if it was legal to copy everything, you could ask Adobe for help, you could openly state you use it, you could tell people how you created the pictures, you wouldn't have hijacked anything...etc.

---

it's not the same as a theater? exactly my point. added value that can't be stolen.

---

So if it was free to copy movies in theater quality, you would only pay the theater who offers the added value. The producers and everyone else involved in the making of the movie would get... well nothing.

 

 

 

---

no you could not ask them for help because they didn't sell it to you.that's why linux, a very good OS still can't dent a paid OS like windows after decades of trying. because its worth paying and getting professional product rather than something that is all over the place. why hasn't the open software model killed the paid model? for every paid software out there there is a free counter part. why hasn't the free killed the paid? because paid provides better/easier experience. blender is free and as powerful as any paid 3d program, yet people still choose to pay autodesk money. why?

the producers and everyone else would get paid because it would be sold to the theater that are ligitimate and those who are not would have to wait in order to steal it.

since you already feel entertainers and those companies are over paid, you should ask yourself how is that possible?

[Vegro Solari]

Kwik-

 

Yeah, a person can become a jew by choice.  (you are factually wrong)

Yeah, copyright isn't here to protect creators, only the right-holders. (you are factually wrong)

Yeah,  making a copy is not profit-theft, but a basic human right. (facts again) The "right" of copying naturally belongs to everyone with the technical ability to do so. The whole point of Copyright is to legally steal, excise that right away from everyone and give it to the few.  Copyright is the theft, or if you prefer, amputation of everyone's natural ability to copy, emulate, make derivative work, etc.

This travesty dresses in moralistic garb:  "won't somebody think of the poor artists?!"

Cheap excuses and lures are used:  "your financial security as creator could be at stake..."

We see fascist, draconian enforcement of the policy, revving up from one year to the next,  ruining the lives of thousands of innocent, good people. If these things stay unconscious, unexamined in the mind of the public, it's bound to get only get worse and worse as copyright is used for everything an overreaching  world-wide Nazi regime needs to conduct its business of control and domination. The following are just a few of the current trends:

- corporations can claim copyright on genetic code, including that of unwitting persons whose DNA was acquired via tests and medical procedures.

- If a "copyrighted" seed (plant) is found in a farmer's field amongst other noncopyrighted crops, that field's yeild automatically by law belongs to the "copyrighted seed" rights owner.

- if a copyrighted persona appears or their voice is used in a video produced by you+me,  that entirety of that video becomes the property of said rights holder and their subsidiaries.

- high tech copyright enforcement agencies are running bots and scanning content;  the law allows them to claim ownership and DMCA-takedown (=censor) absolutely anyone and anything, with no proof required. In one case, such an agency wrongly claimed copyright over birdsong in a forest that the person recorded themselves 30 mins prior to posting that video. The video was taken down. The person tried to fight it with a counter DMCA, but the company STILL claimed they had positive-ID, that birdsong had to be theirs (and their subsidiaries). It only backed off when there was a giant public outcry and hundreds of thousands emailed the company to express their contempt for this practice (by no means isolated or rare). No penalty of any kind applies to this sort of action on behalf of corps "looking out for the creators", and the law is constantly abused to snuff out smaller competitors by means of lawsuits that financially kill them even if they win it.

 

If you accept all that, and where it's taking us, with open eyes, that's your choice and moral decision, but it's not good that the Industry is duping good people into going along with it blindly. At least, if you wish to listen to the Industry's fairytales about it, then please take it upon yourself to also read and think about the fairytale I posted on the first page for everyone. It's an important one for creators to be familiar with, so as to not make the same mistake of believing the Lawyer and Publisher on their crooked word. They do not belong in our world, as they are not creators...their methods are fascistic, motives corrupt, and their lies so blatant that many good people are actually nowadays believing them..

[Bouttime Whybrow]

monsanto genetically engineered corn. some of the pollen of that corn drifted over to another farm. they claimed that farm now belonged to them because they held the right to the engineered corn.

so once the pollen entered the gene pool, in time monsanto can claim to own corn in its entirety. any one who grows corn would have to pay monsanto a royalty. you tell me that is not theft?

that is not a joke, its a real case.

and sadly only one of many many. as vegro points out.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Bouttime Whybrow wrote:

no you could not ask them for help because they didn't sell it to you.that's why linux, a very good OS still can't dent a paid OS like windows after decades of trying. because its worth paying and getting professional product rather than something that is all over the place. why hasn't the open software model killed the paid model? for every paid software out there there is a free counter part. why hasn't the free killed the paid? because paid provides better/easier experience. blender is free and as powerful as any paid 3d program, yet autodesk still makes a lot of money. why?

---

You really think it's the support channels that make the difference? I can honestly tell you I have never ever contacted Microsoft or Autodesk for any help. So clearly, at least for me, that doesn't make the difference. The only help I've ever used can be found on the internet, just as you can find them for any free counterpart.

The difference is these paid companies are forced to deliver a product that works, under any circumstances. The difference is because they get paid they can develop, quickly and thourougly. Stopping the revenues by allowing it to be copied would make sure you wouldn't have a professional product anymore.

Autodesk makes some serious software I don't know any free counterparts to. If there were good free options, I probably wouldn't be paying thousands of dollars. I didnt pay because I'm made of money.

---

the producers and everyone else would get paid because it would be sold to the theater that are ligitimate and those who are not would have to wait in order to steal it.

---

And why would the theaters pay the producer? Maybe to be the first to be able to show the movie. But as soon as the legal copies are out, and they will come out, people would go to the theater that only has to offer the added experience. Either way the theater might not be the best example, but allowing copying would kill the sale of dvd's in a heartbeat.

btw people wouldn't have to wait in order to "steal" it, they would have to wait three seconds (the time it seems to take for illegal copies to spread right now)  in order to "get their legal copy". There's a big difference.

[Bouttime Whybrow]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Bouttime Whybrow wrote:

no you could not ask them for help because they didn't sell it to you.that's why linux, a very good OS still can't dent a paid OS like windows after decades of trying. because its worth paying and getting professional product rather than something that is all over the place. why hasn't the open software model killed the paid model? for every paid software out there there is a free counter part. why hasn't the free killed the paid? because paid provides better/easier experience. blender is free and as powerful as any paid 3d program, yet autodesk still makes a lot of money. why?

---

You really think it's the support channels that make the difference? I can honestly tell you I have never ever contacted Microsoft or Autodesk for any help. So clearly, at least for me, that doesn't make the difference. The only help I've ever used can be found on the internet, just as you can find them for any free counterpart.

The difference is these paid companies are forced to deliver a product that works, under any circumstances. The difference is because they get paid they can develop, quickly and thourougly. Stopping the revenues by allowing it to be copied would make sure you wouldn't have a professional product anymore.

Autodesk makes some serious software I don't know any free counterparts to. If there were good free options, I probably wouldn't be paying thousands of dollars. I didnt pay because I'm made of money.

---

the producers and everyone else would get paid because it would be sold to the theater that are ligitimate and those who are not would have to wait in order to steal it.

---

And why would the theaters pay the producer? Maybe to be the first to be able to show the movie. But as soon as the legal copies are out, and they will come out, people would go to the theater that only has to offer the added experience. Either way the theater might not be the best example, but allowing copying would kill the sale of dvd's in a heartbeat.

btw people wouldn't have to wait in order to "steal" it, they would have to wait three seconds (the time it seems to take for illegal copies to spread right now)  in order to "get their legal copy". There's a big difference.

---

blender can do anything that any auto desk product can do.

no the theater would continue to pay because they want to keep doing business with the creators, otherwise next time they don't get the movie and relegated to also rans who lag behind.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Vegro Solari wrote:

Yeah, a person can become a jew by choice.  (you are factually wrong)

---

I never said it wasn't possible. I said people wouldn't do that in nazi Germany. (a subject I rather drop right here)

You are forgetting there's a huge difference between "Jew" and "jew". One is someone who is of Jewish birth, the other is someone who has the jewish religion. You can't choose how you are born.

---

Yeah, copyright isn't here to protect creators, only the right-holders. (you are factually wrong)

---

Yes it is there to protect copyright holders. And the second someone created something that can have copyrights, the creator has them. He or she can sell it on if they wish, they're not forced to by any law. If they are employed by a company and the work is made within that company, then the company holds the rights, since the company is the creator. They were not forced to be employed by that company. Creators are protected by copyright, they can hand over those rights if they want to.

---

Yeah,  making a copy is not profit-theft, but a basic human right. (facts again) The "right" of copying naturally belongs to everyone with the technical ability to do so. The whole point of Copyright is to legally steal, excise that right away from everyone and give it to the few.  Copyright is the theft, or if you prefer, amputation of everyone's natural ability to copy, emulate, make derivative work, etc.

---

I'd like to find out where you got that fact? Same book that states it's a human right to camp in your neighbour's backyard maybe? Just because it's so nice and sunny there? i think I answered the rest of this in the previous part.

---

corporations can claim copyright on genetic code, including that of unwitting persons whose DNA was acquired via tests and medical procedures.

---

You can't claim copyrights on anything that's not created by someone.

---

If a "copyrighted" seed (plant) is found in a farmer's field amongst other noncopyrighted crops, that field's yeild automatically by law belongs to the "copyrighted seed" rights owner.

---

Besides the fact I'm pretty sure you can't copyright a plant ( I'm sure it's protected in other ways if someone bred it), you are implying that if I put a copy of a Warhol on my wall, the IP owners of the original work now own my wall? Or maybe my entire house? Does that come with my furniture and clothing? And do they now own my car in the driveway aswell?

---

if a copyrighted persona appears or their voice is used in a video produced by you+me,  that entirety of that video becomes the property of said rights holder and their subsidiaries.

---

You can quote, there's no law against that. You cannot use someone's voice and break it up into seperate words and use that for a movie without the person granting you the rights. If you were correct, I'd like to know who owns the rights on a conversation between three people? Is the property split three ways? Or maybe it's on a letter count basis? Or is the cut made by minutes of speech?

---

high tech copyright enforcement agencies are running bots and scanning content;  the law allows them to claim ownership and DMCA-takedown (=censor) absolutely anyone and anything, with no proof required. In one case, such an agency wrongly claimed copyright over birdsong in a forest that the person recorded themselves 30 mins prior to posting that video. The video was taken down. The person tried to fight it with a counter DMCA, but the company STILL claimed they had positive-ID, that birdsong had to be theirs (and their subsidiaries). It only backed off when there was a giant public outcry and hundreds of thousands emailed the company to express their contempt for this practice (by no means isolated or rare). No penalty of any kind applies to this sort of action on behalf of corps "looking out for the creators", and the law is constantly abused to snuff out smaller competitors by means of lawsuits that financially kill them even if they win it.

---

You can't copyright a bird song, you CAN copyright your recording of that birdsong. So if that bird is recorded by two people, they both have their rights on their recording. If someone decides to record the bird the next day and it hums the exact same song, they own the rights on that recording. It's not exactly rocket science.

---

If you accept all that, and where it's taking us, with open eyes, that's your choice and moral decision, but it's not good that the Industry is duping good people into going along with it blindly. At least, if you wish to listen to the Industry's fairytales about it, then please take it upon yourself to also read and think about the fairytale I posted on the first page for everyone. It's an important one for creators to be familiar with, so as to not make the same mistake of believing the Lawyer and Publisher on their crooked word. They do not belong in our world, as they are not creators...their methods are fascistic, motives corrupt, and their lies so blatant that many good people are actually nowadays believing them..

---

And some people need a lead suit and a tin foil hat.

I see government infringement on my personal space and rights on a near daily basis. None of them have anything to do with copyrights though.

[Vegro Solari]

The saddest thing is that it's not just Monsanto, the "pollen" of Copyright is infecting the minds of all creators,  mesh creators in our case.  I was reading a forum thread recently where an obviously very skilled SL creator was lamenting about how one of her long-discontinued works has resurfaced, was allegedly copybotted and co-opted by someone else.

It was a little shark she made. She had screens that showed the original, and the derivative that this enterprising guy made. Same mesh, no question about it, 'cept the guy made the colours brasher, pasted bigger shark teeth (probably "stolen" from some google-image copyrighted stock photo) and gave it a hilarious grin.

See, the pollen of copyright messes with a creator's mind. We are brainwashed to look out for "infringers" and expect our hard work is going to be "ripped off"... That whole mental frame is toxic, because, now instead of laughing with childlike glee upon seeing what someone did with your little shark, this person might be depressed for days, lose motivation to work, or waste precious and irreplaceable energy on filing idiotic DMCA forms...  All because they've been WRONGLY taught to believe that "this is theft",  "they are ripping you off",  "take action, this is your turf you must protect it"  and all of that phony crap that's been foist upon everyone by the Publishing Industry.

A human being's natural reaction to what the Industry are calling "infringement" is to laugh and be happy.  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  No "profits are being lost", on the contrary, the artist is gaining, if not financially, then in some karma-related sense, or in the approval of the community who are making these derivatives of her work...  Only autistic, desacralized drones would reduce everything we do as people to financial motive alone, especially in the field of creativity.  And honestly, we could use with fewer of those drones in the world, and more creators, everyone knows this. The original creator of the little shark felt like she had no choice but act like a drone, it's the done thing, and by doing so that makes everyone who does the same a little bit more drone-like.  The real toxicity of Copyright will not be felt right away, but after a few years, when people wake up and realize their last remaining vestiges of real art, real culture are GONE, all privatized and turned into an unaffordable luxury.  That's what's happening because of this toxic "monsanto" pollen being spread everywhere.

 

If you're a creator who like the shark person, deeply cares about your works, I want you to ask yourself, what if the guys who are "infringing" on you turn out to be little kiddies, or persons with equivallent mental capacity?  They can't ever hope to achieve your level of expert skill. To paste a silly grin onto your shark and do the sneaky wiley trying to sell it on marketplace may well be the whole extent of that person's creative ability!  That's all they CAN do! Do you see what I am saying?  That's all they CAN do, if they could be like you, they would be!  They're trying! In their own stupid way, trying.

And we're all agreed now that this makes them criminal undesirables.  Please educate yourself about what fascism really is.  It is not what is shown in sappy movies.  You need to know what the face of Fascism looks like, so you will wake up and snap out of it, if you start recognizing more and more of it in the bathroom mirror. 

Best wishes to everyone!

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Bouttime Whybrow wrote:

blender can do anything that any auto desk product can do.

---

Ok, tell me where the mudbox, autocad, sketchbook, design review, inventor, raster design and showcase counterparts and  plugins are and tell me where the irender (or rather its free counterpart) button or plugin is and I might believe you.

---

no the theater would continue to pay because they want to keep doing business with the creators, otherwise next time they don't get the movie and relegated to also rans who lag behind.

---

Yes right until they see the bottom of their cashbox because nobody comes to visit anymore, since the neighbouring theater offers the same movie the next day for half price.

[Bouttime Whybrow]

dude you want to get bogged down in meaning less detail?

ok blender can't make a raster layer so i'll use gimp for that. do we really have to get mundane or can we understand the spirit of things. its the point that matters not whether i list a comprehensive pipeline.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

Yes and the point is I can't do what I do using Autodesk products if I choose to use free software. As I said, I'm not made of money and I don't like looking at 10k bills...especially if I can get the same for free.

[Qie Niangao]

You know, there's a lot of high falutin' language in this thread, but the actual subject is pretty depressing.

Ripping off Pikachu? Really? Could we think of something even more lame and call it "user generated content" ?

Yeah, I know SL is short for Sturgeon's Law, but gimme a break.

[Vegro Solari]

"If there was no fascist copyright law to mess with everyone's head, then the GOOD corporations that make the tools and products we need would go bankrupt. Therefore I should believe in the cause of fascist copyright and all it entails."

What does the statement above more closely resemble-

A) The logical truth all reasonable people must accept and deal with.

B) Just another cheap propaganda line trickling down from the copyright lobby.

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

That would have been a nice post to end this thread:)

Since it's not the last anymore, I thought I'd use this extra post to tell you just that....

[Pamela Galli]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

You know, there's a lot of high falutin' language in this thread, but the actual subject is pretty depressing.

Ripping off Pikachu? Really? Could we think of something even more lame and call it "user generated content" ?

Yeah, I know SL is short for Sturgeon's Law, but gimme a break.

---

This.

[Helium Loon]

Not replying to anyone, just to the whole thread....

 

Good grief, any opposing viewpoints get absurd when you take them to the extremes.  The problem today isn't whether copyright is good or bad.  It has elements of both, like almost ALL legislation.  The problem is whether or not it has (and is) been/being taken too far.

 

Like any legislation, enforcement, penalties, and scope can be blown way out of proportion.  This HAS happened with copyright law.  We can see it in the news feeds.  Legislation was bought by corporations, and now they have the legal means to extort money.  Arguing with this is useless, it's a simple and demonstrated fact.

 

Copyright (at one time) was useful, and actually helped the markets thrive, since it provided a reasonable period of protection to the original creator.  Now, thanks to holding companies and IP hoarders, they've managed to get the durations extended to ludicrous time spans.  Now it isn't about protecting the rights of the creators, but to milk every last cent of profit they can from owning such rights.

 

Trademarks were similar.  They provided a legal way for a company to prevent others from intentionally trying to capitalize on brand confusion.  But now it can be used much more heavy-handedly......not as bad as copyright can, but give the mega-corporations time, and they'll bribe legislation through for it as well.

 

The problem isn't copyright.  It's allowing legislation to be driven by graft and greed, and allowing contributions and kickbacks to politicians by non-individuals in obscene amounts.  Corporations don't want people actually thinking about these laws.....they hire big PR to figure out sound-bites and slogans that are catchy to keep people from thinking and analyzing what's really happening and simply remember (and believe) the slogans.

 

As for whether or not disobeying unconscionable laws is 'wrong'.....if nobody did, we'd still be white/colored segregated here in the US.  We'd have even a larger fascist state, and women wouldn't have the vote either.  Something to think about.

 

[Ashasekayi Ra]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

Yes and the point is I can't do what I do using Autodesk products if I choose to use free software. As I said, I'm not made of money and I don't like looking at 10k bills...especially if I can get the same for free.

---

 

Thankfully, you can use a free 3D suite to make any one of SL 's assets with the same level of professionalism as you could with Max or Maya. So, in the end, price isn't an excuse for using pirated software in the case of SL content creation.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Ashasekayi Ra wrote:

Thankfully, you can use a free 3D suite to make any one of SL 's assets with the same level of professionalism as you could with Max or Maya. So, in the end, price isn't an excuse for using pirated software in the case of SL content creation.

---

I hope I am misreading your post, but I most certainly don't run illegal Autodesk software.

I use the software for SL because I have it at my disposal, I didn't buy it for SL creation, that would have been insane in my position as small SL business owner.

Not that I need it at this point or anytime even remotely soon, but if there's a good 3d painting program out there for free, I'd like to know. So will many others I bet.