Jump to content

Dirtnap Mumfuzz

Resident
  • Posts

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dirtnap Mumfuzz

  1. As far as I am aware, mesh items can be loaded in the Titan like any other design. We have many of these arrangements out at the main store location. The biggest problem with them that I know of is that you cannot really load your meshes in temp status, or else it will charge a higher PE cost than would be expected (especially since temp rezzed items should count as zero, up to 500 prims per parcel or something to that effect) . If sources are correct, then the Titan will end up 'charging' you double the PE if mesh is loaded in temp status on the vendor. It really is a shame that this particular creator does not provide support for their product, but still offers it. I dropped out of their group due to the answers to my questions always being "go buy a different product from someone else" Merchants who sell utilities such as this should be held to a higher standard of participation, IMHO, or be required to pull the product. I would even venture to say require refunds to existing customers as a penalty, but that has LOL written all over it.
  2. @ anaiya You've done nothing but talk in circles. Did you win the argument with yourself yet? Good luck w/ that.
  3. This post seems to have degraded (as many interweb discussions do) to a contextual argument based on misinformed perception of comprehension, for the sake of keeping the spotlight focused on a few egos at the expense of many. Owning a product and owning its license are two different things. Without license, you 'own' a copy but not its license; in other words, you are paying to borrow the item. License can be revoked, read the fine print. Crossing the line between virtual and physical theft to suit your argument makes as much sense as saying that because the banks only borrowed the money, those taxpayers deserve to foot the bill for the bailout and homeowners deserve to lose their homes, and is a primary contributor to why you are confusing yourself. Bait and switch tactics are quite malicious, and ownership is usually identified or interpreted externally as a display of unexplainable defensive behavior. And we all do it, it is a factual matter of human sociology. It is not a question of physical ownership, it is a matter of wrongful acquisition and infringement of copy RIGHTS, aka LICENSE. The content creator at ALL TIMES unless they specific otherwise MAINTAINS THEIR LICENSE. You are talking about an intangible or non-physical product, and the rights to protect that license extend to anyone willing to protect them. Licenses can be acquired or sold, which removes or transfers IP RIGHTS for LICENSE not 'product ownership'. Ask Paul Mcartney about how he felt about Michael Jackson outbidding him for the IP rights to his own music, which he waited his whole life to get back. Do ya think Paul decided to just go ahead and use the music he created anyways, even though the license belonged to someone else? Get it? This is the same concept that the insurance industry uses to bully government powers into cooperation with their system. If I take your car without your permission, and return it, I still have STOLEN it. If I take your credit card and return it, I have STOLEN it. If I take your idea and profit from it, I have STOLEN it. If I share your corporate secrets and company policies with your competitor, I have assisted in stealing it. If I take your idea to another country and make knock-offs, I have STOLEN IT; even if the laws in each country conflict. If I buy a copy of your CD ( note that when you buy music, you are borrowing the CONTENT, not buying the LICENSE) and make copies and give them to my friends, i have STOLEN it. If I take ideas from companies and share them with other companies, even though the first company still has their idea I have still commited a crime called THEFT. Read the news sometime this stuff is all over the place. This is really simple stuff. Which is probably why most people don't get it. The only time it is not theft is when the creator cannot or does not wish to maintain their license, and we have a category just for them; we call it Public Domain. There also exists a means for helping define and solidify shared works, rights, licenses and other concepts, known generally as Creative Commons. At this point, from reviewing the web log, I believe you are just bickering about grammatical semantics for the sake of arguing, because attention is fun! But playing referee as to the meaning of 'theft' and its mechanical application is the one thing that serves no purpose whatsoever, seeing as the real decision will not be based on armchair blogattorneys making grand assumptions, anymore than all LL problems will be resolved by that one or twenty guys who want to start shouting in forums about how to reverse or fix their latest patch or update with a revert. Attempting to affect public opinion by smearing the terms under accusation of a scare tactic is a scare tactic in itself. And this is what we call bait and switch. The license to the design belongs to the designer unless otherwise licensed, and the weight of responsibility falls upon the content creator to pursue protection of their LICENSE. NO amount of bored people on Second Life forums arguing about how many shades of white "white" really is, will ever change that. Using insider information to profit from stock markets is theft. Stealing company secrets, granting homeloans to people you know cannot repay them, IP theft, identity theft, content theft, copy botting, embezzlement, copyright AND trademark infringement, plaigarism, piracy are all theft. Theft is theft, whether physical or virtual, just like water is wet, whether or not it is potable. However license is only as enforceable as your ability to enforce it. So good luck with that. But that of course is only my opinion, which you are welcome (and likely) to completely misinterpret or disregard as usual.
×
×
  • Create New...