Anaiya Arnold

Phil Deakins wrote: You seem to be repeating yourself in cosecutive posts, so I'll repeat myself a bit... Nothing springs from nothing. I'll add, not without someone or something causing it. And you're still using the word "creator" as an intelligent creator. "Creator" means an entity/person/intelligence. I'm not assuming, or suggesting, a "creator". I'm saying that this universe (this space, this time, and this matter that we know) didn't always exist and so it must have been created. I've made no suggestion as to how it got created. It might have popped through from another universe for all I know, or it might have been created by an omnipotent being. I don't suggest any particluar way of its creation, but I do say that it hasn't existed forever. You also think it's more likely not to have existed forever, so why are you debating against me so much? You said, " Either something came from nothingness or there was never nothingness" Before this universe came into being, there was nothingness - Null. If there hadn't been nothingness/Null, the universe would have already existed and that can't be. I think you are thinking about many universes, and perhaps thinking that our universe sprang from one of them. Some scientists suggest that too. But other universes are not this universe, and this universe is the only one that I've been talking about. If there was something here already for another universe to shove stuff into, then the spacetime of this universe was here already, so it would promote the "always existed" idea. And that can't be. Your creator assumption is not possible unless either something came from nothing or there was never a state of nothingness. Your whole reason for assuming a creator though is because you do not find either of these things believable, but your creator is not possible unless one of them is true. I haven't written an assumption of a "creator". I do have a "creation" assumption, which is quite different. But, since you write as though I have a "creator assumption", I'll say that I do have a similar assumption. I've said it before, anyway. Since this universe cannot have been here eternally, it must have had a beginning, and, since nothing can spring from nothing without someone or something creating it, it must have been created. It's the only conclusion. A someone could be God, or someone in a lab in another universe, or even the ultimate fate of a black hole. I can't argue either way. What I can argue about, and it's all I've been arguing about, is that this universe cannot have existed eternally. You are assuming nothing comes from nothing because that is your observation within this universe. But it is baseless to assume that if nothing comes from nothing within the limitations of this universe, that this same thing must be true externally to our universe. That nothing comes from nothing may have only become a fact at time T where time T is the exact moment the universe became extant. And further it may be the case that nothing comes from nothing applies nowhere but within our universe. What evidence do you have that nothing comes from nothing rather than that something comes from nothing, externally to our universe and its limitations? Your addition is nonsense of course. Either there is nothingness and no something or someone that can cause somethingness, or there is not nothingness. And you are still making these baseless assumptions about my use of the word creator. Please explain where that comes from other than a very rude and disrespectful assumption that unlike you, I am completely unable to conceptualize a 'creator" that is absent of intelligence. Either give a reason for your persistent accusation that is specific to what I have written, or accept that it is unmerited and again more about your baseless assumptions than anything I have written. Now you are claiming you are not assuming or suggesting a creator. The following is a quote from your earlier post. Note the word in bold. The conclusion must be that something created it, and before that happened, no space, time and matter existed. Then, of course, we ask, how come that creator existed? You posited not merely "something" existing, but specifically described it as a creator. Your reasoning is also utterly unsound when you try to assert that you both did not claim a creator and are merely claiming that something must have created the universe. If X was created by something, then the something is a creator. You cannot suggest that X was created without also suggesting a creator by necessarily implication. By suggestion creation you cannot exclude and must include a creator. X came into being does not require that X was created. Being created does not simply mean coming into being, but rather coming into being via a process that entails a creator. What I am debating against is this assumption of your's of a creator. One you now apparently wish to distance yourself from based on the fact that despite you having suggested a creator, both by referencing one outright as in the text I quoted above, and through the assertion the universe was "created" (a process that is distinguishable from "coming into being" only by virtue of the addition of a creator) you have since asserted that you never even suggested such a thing. You seem to assume that if X is not this universe or within this universe, then X has never existed. That is a baseless assumption. The universe began at time T postulated as being the Big Bang, and there is no evidence whatsoever that nothingness rather than somethingness proceeded the Big Bang. There is no evidence that there is not something external to our universe now, much less that there was not something before time T. That's just a baseless assumption on your part. I'm not thinking of many universes in particular. It might be alien to your thinking style (as your assumptive thinking style is to me) but I personally don't make assumptions about things I know that I do not know, and instead, in such cases settle for a series of potential answers amongst which I do not arbitarily favour or disfavour any particular potential answer to the exclusion of others or the singular promotion of one specific potential answer. I am no more or less inclined to believe that there was always something, than I am to believe that something came from nothing. Both answers are equally likely so far as the information I can currently access indicates, so I do not favour one or disfavour the other. Assuming many universes is a leap of assumption I am neither inclined nor willing to make. I do not exclude it nor do I favour it. It would be entirely arbitary to do either and simply baseless assumption. Nothing you've argued here gives any basis for excluding the possibility that there was never "nothingness". You keep stating that this is the case without ever actually giving us any reason to believe it other than that you personally find it difficult to believe. That's not a compelling reason. Since you seem to think you can posit "was created" without a creator, I reiterate that the distinction between something being created and something coming into being, is that both are identical other than one of these adds a creator as a necessary component and the other is silent on whether or not a creator is involved. If you say "create" then you are positing a creator via necessary implication. Nothing is created without a creator and things that come into being without a creator are not created but came into being via some process other than "creation". Of course that's all besides the point in a context where you specified a creator as you did indeed do. Again you repeat your unproven assertion that if the universe had a beginning there must have been nothing before it but where is the evidence for that?

Phil Deakins wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: It's a complete mystery to me why you would conclude that I wrote as though you had said or implied a "creator" in the sense of a person. Perhaps you can specify which comments of mine state or imply any such thing, because I have no idea where you pulled that out of. When we talk about a creator, we generally mean an intelligence. All of your post simply used the word "creator" so it looked like you meant an intelligent creator - a person. There's no need to assume a creator. Either there was always something and the universe could have evolved due to the innate properties of whatever pre-existed it, which is as likely to be a precursor as a creator, or something can come from nothing and so we don't need a creator. Nothing can " come from nothing". If the universe " evolved due to the innate properties of whatever pre-existed it", as you suggested, then something would have existed before it, so where did that come from? From something that existed before that? And so it goes on and on. In other words, it always existed, which is something that I find cannot possibly be true. If it is true, how come it got to always be there? That's the question that leads to the conclusion that it can't always have been there. The rest of your post uses the word "creator" as an intelligent being, but I'll assume you don't mean it that way. If you do, why talk to me about it? I never suggested such a thing. All I am saying is that the universe cannot have existed forever. If you sit back and really consider that it might have existed forever - infinitely in the past, never having had a beginning - you'll come to the conclusion that it can't have been that way. I'm not suggesting anything about where it may or may not have come from, or how it got started when there was Null, and no place or time for Null to be. There are all sorts of fancy ideas about that, but nobody will ever know because it's not possible for us within the universe to know. Phil you said there had to have been a creator. You now claim when "we" (a group ill defined here but which obviously includes yourself and which you've no reason whatsoever to believe includes me) use the word creator, "we" (a group that includes you but which you've no reason to believe includes me) generally mean intelligence. So according to what you are claiming, you used a word that you think means intelligence is involved, I used the same word, and even though nothing I've said indicates I am in this group you refer to as "we", you immediately chose to assume I had made this assumption that it very much looks like you wanted readers of your posts to make. If you think that creator means an intelligence is involved to most people or to whoever constitutes this "we" you vaguely refer to, then why would you use this word without clarification in the first place, unless you're hoping people would make this error so you could feel all clever when they did? In any case, the assumption that I thought you meant what you must have fully expected people would think you meant, was mistaken. The only characteristics I have assigned to your creator come entirely from your actual texts and any necessary implications of the assertions made within. So for instance, while the charactertistics of this creator are unclear, necessarily they must be sufficient to distinguish it from any and all other things that are not creators because this is a necessarily implication of stating "there must have been a creator" rather than "there must have been something or other". The question "how come something was always here" is not implied by the universe evolving from some other non-nothingness. The question entails a bunch of baseless assumptions, most significantly of all the assmption that "nothingness" is not an impossibily in any form other than a conceptualization of a thinking mind. If "nothingness" as something other than a conceputalization is impossible, then the answer to your question is "because nothingness is impossible there must be something". So until you can explain why we would assume nothingness is even possible, your question is not even a starter. Baseless assumptions about rules that are observable within our universe holding true externally, are also involved in this question of yours. At no point have I used the word creator as referring to a something necessarily characterized by intelligence, which I have already pointed out to you. I challenged you to show what comment of mine implied that I assigned intelligence to your "creator" and your response was to suggest that a group that includes you usually think the word means this. In the same post you then reiterate this earlier accusation, so I reiterate my challenge. Show how my comments using the word creator assigns intelligence to the referent of that word. Now you want to claim is that all you are saying is that the universe cannot have existed forever, which is in fact entirely different to saying "there must have been a creator";. So all you are doing is completely changing your argument.

The universe probably did not always exist, but that does not mean that there was ever a state of nothingness. Some precursor to the universe might have existed before it; it may be that there was always something and each subsequent thing flowed from it. While you think this may be incrediable, it's not one bit more incrediable than that a creator came forth from nothing or that a creator always existed. Either something came from nothingness or there was never nothingness. You seem to think your assumption is more likely than the alternative but it is obviously and categorically less likely. Your creator assumption is not possible unless either something came from nothing or there was never a state of nothingness. Your whole reason for assuming a creator though is because you do not find either of these things believable, but your creator is not possible unless one of them is true.

Phil Deakins wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: The point remains the same. Either there was always something, or somethingness can and did come forth from nothingness. Why it would be the case that the universe or some precursor of it was always there, or why it would be the case that something would come from nothing is a different question. Why would a creator always have existed, or why would a creator have come forth from nothingness is no less pressing a question, and it's not answered by saying because otherwise something would always have existed or something would have come from nothing because even if we accept a creating something, we still have the exact same problem that the something, whatever it is, either always existed or come forth from nothing.. No matter whether we insert arbitary things called "creator" or not, we still have the same essential problem of something having always existed or something having come from nothing. Simply calling the something "creator" rather than "universe" does nothing to resolve the problem. There is no more reason to expect a creator has always existed than to expect the germ of a universe always existed until the universe itself existed. Nor is there anymore reason to suppose a creator would come from nothingness than there is to expect the same of a universe. A creator did it is not only arbitary it still leaves you with the exact same problem you think it solves. If you think a creator could not have come into existence from nothing how come it was *always* there? How came it exists? If you think a creator did not always exist but came to exist from nothing, then how come it came to exist from nothing? Your solution is not a solution but merely an arbitary out of the blue assumption that suffers from exactly the problem you wish to use it to solve. I never said or implied a "creator" in the sense of a person. You wrote as though I did. I'm not saying it wasn't a 'person', but I didn't suggest or imply that it was. Apart from that, what you wrote is right. Since the only conclusion for the existance of the universe is that it was created, and not always there, the questions that you asked are rightly raised - who or what caused it to be come into existance as we know it, and was that "who or what" created or always there? That "who or what" must necessarily have been outside the universe at the time of creation, and, therefore, that external reality is inaccessible to our comprehension. It's beyond us, and we are left with what is accessible to us - the universe that we see - which, fortunately, is the topic of this thread It's a complete mystery to me why you would conclude that I wrote as though you had said or implied a "creator" in the sense of a person. Perhaps you can specify which comments of mine state or imply any such thing, because I have no idea where you pulled that out of. There's no need to assume a creator. Either there was always something and the universe could have evolved due to the innate properties of whatever pre-existed it, which is as likely to be a precursor as a creator, or something can come from nothing and so we don't need a creator. Let's imagine for critical thinking exercise that there was no creator. Why is this a problem? Is it because within the rules of the universe something does not arise from nothing autonomously? Why on earth (haha) would that matter to how things happen outside or prior to our universe? Outsidethe limitations of our universe, perhaps something arises from nothing, autonomously, rather commonly. Or perhaps nothingness is simply a human fancy at odds with a reality of eternal somethingness, in which case we don't need a creator because there was never nothing and whatever there was could have been something that both the universe autonomously evolved from, and was not a creator. Essentially your argument is an attempt to get around a problem of cause and effect and you do this by arbitarily inserting a creator as a "cause-effect" breaker. The creator is special and not ascertainable from within the universe so it does not matter if they ignore the cause and effect rule as we can just go all agnostic at that point. That's not an advance on simply deciding that the universe evolved from circumstances not ascertainable from within the universe so it does not matter if whatever those circumstances were and how they resulted in the universe, ignore the cause and effect rule that operates within our universe as nothing stops us going agnostic at that point. The only difference between the two formulations, is one arbitarily assumes "creator" despite a complete absence of any particular evidence for that, despite the fact that this does not further our knowledge or give rise to a single testable premise or useful question, and despite the fact that it adds nothing whatsoever from where we are if we assume "circumstances unspecified" rather specifically a "creator".

Marcus Hancroft wrote: Rya Nitely wrote: When I hit Update after editing an item DON'T take me to my new/revised listing, but let me search for it myself. Here, here! /me raises his hand on this one also! Don't do this, Linden Lab! We'd just absolutely HATE it if you did! LMAO! It would be awful. I'd save so much time, I'd have to find another hobby. I would not mind so much but I already have a cat. I'd hate it even more if instead of having a box that looks like the ones that lets you type a number in to navigate to another page, they had a box that actually lets you type a number in to navigate to that page.

Baloo Uriza wrote: Irrelevant, given that the Lab's in the business of a specialized kind of hosting, not the viewer market. It's not irrelevant at all if the Lab's customer satisfaction directly correlates to their satisfaction with the predominate means of accessing the product.

I had a reply window open over the same thing. Please Pussycat, do not spread that garbage. It borders on hate speech at best. I honestly think it crosses the border.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: That last statement of mine is flawed, because our world could exist without us. I still think we are part of nature though. Maybe. Yes, you are entirely right. We are definately part of nature and everything we do is natural, which is quite different to saying that everything we do is desirable, good, or sustainable over the long term. Extinction is natural too. We're absolutely part of nature and all our acts are natural.

Phil Deakins wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: Why would I assume there was ever a time when nothing existed?. It makes no more sense than assuming there was always something somewhere. I didn't suggest that there was a time when nothing existed, because time didn't exist either. Absolute nothingness, in the way that I wrote, means no space, no matter, and no time. We can't actually imagine it because we need the concept of space and time to imagine such a state. But do away with space and time and consider absolute nothingness. It's either the case there always was something, or that something came into existence from nothing. No matter how many creators you imagine in between then and now, the fact remains there was either always something, or at some point somethingness arose from nothingness. No amount of arbitary insertion of creators changes the basic problem you are trying to deploy creators as a solution to. That's right, except for one thing - the universe can't always have been there. If you think it could have been, how come it was *always* there? How come it exists? The point remains the same. Either there was always something, or somethingness can and did come forth from nothingness. Why it would be the case that the universe or some precursor of it was always there, or why it would be the case that something would come from nothing is a different question. Why would a creator always have existed, or why would a creator have come forth from nothingness is no less pressing a question, and it's not answered by saying because otherwise something would always have existed or something would have come from nothing because even if we accept a creating something, we still have the exact same problem that the something, whatever it is, either always existed or come forth from nothing.. No matter whether we insert arbitary things called "creator" or not, we still have the same essential problem of something having always existed or something having come from nothing. Simply calling the something "creator" rather than "universe" does nothing to resolve the problem. There is no more reason to expect a creator has always existed than to expect the germ of a universe always existed until the universe itself existed. Nor is there anymore reason to suppose a creator would come from nothingness than there is to expect the same of a universe. A creator did it is not only arbitary it still leaves you with the exact same problem you think it solves. If you think a creator could not have come into existence from nothing how come it was *always* there? How came it exists? If you think a creator did not always exist but came to exist from nothing, then how come it came to exist from nothing? Your solution is not a solution but merely an arbitary out of the blue assumption that suffers from exactly the problem you wish to use it to solve.

Phil Deakins wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: I don't see how the only conclusion can be that something must have created it. It can be one conclusion, but not the only one. Consider nothing at all - no 'anywhere' and no 'when' - no space, no matter, and no time for anything to exist in - absolute nothingness. Then something exists. How come? How did something come into existance? I can see no other conclusion but that existance itself, as we understand it (space, time, matter), was created by something/one. I can see that there might be, or have been, some other form of existance that we don't know about, that brought about the universe we do know about, but, to us, existance itself (the universe) is matter, space for the matter to be in, and time for the matter and space to exist in. That's the universe, which is all we know about, and that *had* to come about by something happening; i.e. something or some entity doing something that brought it about when there was absolutely no existance/universe at all. Something had to have happened, and something (or someone), in some form of existance, had to have caused it. Why would I assume there was ever a time when nothing existed?. It makes no more sense than assuming there was always something somewhere. It's either the case there always was something, or that something came into existence from nothing. No matter how many creators you imagine in between then and now, the fact remains there was either always something, or at some point somethingness arose from nothingness. No amount of arbitary insertion of creators changes the basic problem you are trying to deploy creators as a solution to.

Sy Beck wrote: And what if there is no universe, no space, matter or time and I am just a concious entity alone, but capable of imagining all those things and all that exists around me and able to imagine the physical and emotional sensations they might possess and/or express and all of you are just constructs of my conscience? I look forward to hearing back from myself shortly. Je pense, donc je suis Then I must shift the blame from Morgan to you. I blame you!

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Or rather you used to be able to hide your status, until a certain malware viewer cracked the code and put in a feature to snoop folks - which was retained when that viewer was required by LLs to change its name in response to said viewer having used SL to launch a hacking attempt on aother website.... At present you no longer can, but the ability to have privacy will sort of half-baked be returning, as they're not really blocking old copies of the thing... Just break the script side version of it. There's only one version PussyCat. I guess they could have "hacked the code". I can only suppose this would entail typing random stuff into an lsl script until something worked. At which point they would jump from their baths yelling "Eureka". Alternatively, and I accept this may be a radical suggestion, maybe they just read about it on the lsl wiki.

ROB34466IIIa wrote: The universe came to be because of Morgan Freeman. Yeah, it was a bad move and has made a lot of people very angry. I blame you Morgan!

I did not realize you could see the tags in LL's viewers so I did not take that into consideration when trying to understand your point. I can see how it's in LL's interests to have the dominant viewer but it's a complete surprise and news to me if they see it that way. Their response to user concerns about the quality of their viewers has always seemed to me to indicate that they would rather we used another viewer than bother them with our needs and expectations. The problem in trying to figure out where LL is coming from is that LL both are not entirely explicit and clear about their policy direction and priorities and that these things change without being explicitly signalled to the user base. So firstly you have to read between the lines to figure out where they are at, and then you have to keep re-checking between those lines to see if they've entirely changed directions. Based on historical attitudes toward viewers (as I perceived them) LL could not give a toss how you logged in so long as you did not use a viewer with prohibited functions. They would in fact prefer you used a TPV rather than place expectations and demands on them to produce a viewer that fits our broad and diverse needs. But even if I am right and that is how they felt historically, that does not mean they still feel that way now.

Baloo Uriza wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: The customer is always the source of income. No source of income = no solvent business. The customer, right or wrong, is the source of a business's solvency. Whatever they know, their satisfaction and opinions are a core concern of anyone who wants to get their money. If you're not paying, you're not a customer. You're not paying for the viewer, ergo viewer matters aren't customer issues. What percentage of Ll's customers do not use one or another viewer to access SL Baloo?

I don't want LL to move rather than delist our items if we wrongly categorize a tiny percentage of items on an infrequent and obviously unintentional basis. I don't want LL to inform us automatically which category a delisted item should go in either. They should waste our time and their's making us send in a support ticket to get this information. It's more educational that way.

Baloo Uriza wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: Baloo Uriza wrote: The only people saying the Lindens hate innovation is the Emerald crew. Gee, I had no idea approximately half the grid were part of the "Emerald crew". You grossly overestimate the size of a small, vocal minority. My point is my point. If you have a pre-determined conclusion that this point leads away from in application, that is a matter of your inconvenience. I have not over estimated anything because such an estimate is utterly irrelevant to what I have argued. Put the strawman down Baloo; he probably did not put that bee in your bonnet.

Baloo Uriza wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: What value should I place on my customer's opinion, however ill-informed? Well to get that answer you merely have to ask, "how much do I value having a solvent company or job?" However much you value a solvent business and job, that's how much value you ought to put on your customers' opinions and level of satisfaction. That wrongly assumes that the customer is never wrong, and that the customer knows what's better for everyone else who also works with that company. How does referring to an opinion as "ill informed" assume that it is right. The customer is always the source of income. No source of income = no solvent business. The customer, right or wrong, is the source of a business's solvency. Whatever they know, their satisfaction and opinions are a core concern of anyone who wants to get their money.

Toy, I don't think the server is sending 2D information. That's the whole point. EDITED TO ADD: I see I'm a bit late to this party......I only stepped away to get a coffee before I clicked the post button. :matte-motes-bashful-cute-2:

Baloo Uriza wrote: The only people saying the Lindens hate innovation is the Emerald crew. Gee, I had no idea approximately half the grid were part of the "Emerald crew". Oh noes! I'm surrounded? Is this why my latest "Guide to the Galaxy" appears to be missing a T, N and apostrophe from the text on the front cover?

Cincia Singh wrote: Imagine someone using terms like "boneheaded" "irresponsible" "naive" "inept" and "careless" to describe the work WE do at our RL jobs when they don't have a clue about everything we do and how we have to do it due to our workplace rules. What value would we put on that person's opinion? Would that approach make us want to help them with their problems? What value should I place on my customer's opinion, however ill-informed? Well to get that answer you merely have to ask, "how much do I value having a solvent company or job?" However much you value a solvent business and job, that's how much value you ought to put on your customers' opinions and level of satisfaction.

Sassy Romano wrote: MoiselleErin Teardrop wrote: I asked a friend why they would remove the viewer part of one's tag and she said, "LL doesn't want everyone to know how few people actually use their viewer" Seems stupid tho cause it is not like LL doesn't make a killing with all the L$ that fly around Yes and no. Aside from the money, it IS essential to LL that it is able to execute on strategy and that has been hampered by the use of TPVs. Mesh is a prime example. LL delivered mesh but... many people were using viewers that didn't support mesh so mesh was a "thing" that only some people could see if they succumbed to using LL's viewer. That's not good for strategy at all. I figured mesh would only become mainstream when both Firestorm and Phoenix viewers had mesh support. LL are introducing new functions for games such as Linden Realms and who knows what else but if these require that TPV's update their code too and don't do something in the mean time break something else then that impacts on the strategy and isn't really supportable. However, it shouldn't really be a case of spite, such as it feels like with the viewer tags, LL *should* be commanding that position from one of product superiority and user respect. The policy does not oblige TPVs to include everything that is in the latest LL release, but rather to exclude anything that impacts the shared experience and is not accessible from LL's latest release viewer. So if this policy had been in effect when mesh rolled out, it would have made absolutely no difference whatsoever...

Baloo Uriza wrote: They're claiming that innovation is dead when all that's changing is that they're actually expected to throw patches back upstream for compatibility. In other words, they're being held to the common courtesy most code forks already do. Er your interpretation is way off base. In the first instance, there is no "not handing" upstream. They are not allowed to not share the code under the license for LL's code, so anything LL want they can have. Secondly, it was not true when you claimed it earlier and it's still not true that they do not contribute. What has changed is that before they could send the patch upstream and LL could use or disregard it, or go digging for anything and everything else they wanted from any TPV forked from LL's code under LL's licensing terms, and if LL did not want it, the TPV could offer it to their own users. Now if whatever the innovation is happens to effect the shared experience, they can still offer it to LL just like they always could, LL can still just take it if they want it, just like they always could, but the TPV cannot offer it to its own users unless and untill LL put it in a release version of their own viewer. The fact you are glaringly ignoring is that contributions from TPVs including the firestorm team you have some kind of bee in your bonnet over, were already available to LL and that on occassions FireStorm devs worked proactively with LL to ensure a smooth and speedy implementatino of such conributions back "up stream". At this point, since this fact has been pointed out to you in another thread that you returned to and posted in again, all while ignoing this fact being pointed out to you, it seems like your tall tales are deliberate lies rather than an honest mistake. Kindly explain what stopped LL from implementing any code they felt like from any TPV compliant viewer before this change? LL have no more access to TPV code under the new policy than they did under the old. None, nada, zilch. Stop making up tall tales Baloo.

Chosen Few wrote: The replicas that Majatek made would just be copies of Valve's existing property. Since Valve owns the copyright, they own all the copies. That's why it's called "copyright" in the first place. Lol, no. It's called copyright because it is the right to produce and publish/distribute copies, and to determine who else may produce, publish/distribute copies, not a right to own every copy in existence.

Chosen Few wrote: Ry0ta Exonar wrote: LMAO He mentioned clearly textures were ripped out of TF2 on his ad. This guy reminds me of the villains' henchmen in the old Adam West Batman show. They'd have the word "henchman" written right on their shirts. "Hey, Batman, come beat me up. I'm a bad guy." In this case, it's "Hey, LL, please delete my content. I'm telling you loud and clear that I stole it." Or possibly, "Hey, Valve, please sue me. My favorite activity is being sued. I love it. So, I'm putitng up a big sign that announces I stole your stuff." Ry0ta Exonar wrote: If he files a DMCA on your item, you could file a counter DMCA. There's no such thing as "filing a DMCA". The DMCA is a law. It's already been "filed", by Congress. The phrase you're looking for is "filing a takedown notice", which is done in accordance with the DMCA. In any case, as I just said to the OP, neither one of these theives can legally file a takedown notice. Only the IP owner can do that, which in this case, happens to be Valve. Yeah, for someone who persistently calls IP infringement theft, before then declaring that the OP has only infringed and done nothing criminal, I don't think you're really in a position to nit pick. Most people seem to understand what is meant by "file a DMCA" just fine, even if this is not sufficient for pedants, but obviously you are no pedant when it comes to your own expression. IP infringement is not theft, which does not mean it's not criminal. Theft entails denying the legitimate owner of ownership, not merely denying them some benefit, exploiting from their work, or trespassing against their rights. IP infringement is no more theft than if I snuck into your yard illegally to draw your apple tree so I could sell the resulting art work. It's illegal and wrong, but it's not theft.