Backpage Founders Trial Finally Begins
from the where-will-it-end? dept
It’s been over three years since Backpage.com was seized (the week before FOSTA was signed into law — which is notable since every conversation about the need for FOSTA claimed it was because existing laws were useless to stop Backpage). However, in the intervening years we’ve seen that the loss of Backpage, rather than “protecting” women, seems to have put women at much greater risk. The recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report highlighted how the loss of Backpage, combined with FOSTA, has made it difficult for law enforcement to track down actual sex traffickers.
As more of the backstory behind the war on Backpage came out, the more ridiculous it looked. The company actually was incredibly helpful in working with law enforcement to track down and stop sex trafficking. The problem came when law enforcement wanted to stop more than actual sex trafficking, and started going after consensual sex work. Backpage pushed back, suggesting that was too far, and that’s when the government turned Backpage into being a villain.
With the trial beginning, the Daily Beast has as pretty comprehensive and pretty fair article detailing the whole thing, including raising serious questions about what exactly Backpage’s founders actually did to deserve this criminal trial.
According to documents published by Reason, federal prosecutors in the Western District of Washington reviewed more than 100,000 documents and interviewed more than a dozen witnesses in 2012 in an attempt to bring a case against Backpage, but failed to find a smoking gun. In fact, according to a memo written by two assistant U.S. attorneys at the time, local FBI agents found the company ?remarkably responsive to law enforcement requests? and said the site ?often takes proactive steps to assist in investigations.?
?At the outset of this investigation, it was anticipated that we would find evidence of candid discussions among [Backpage] principals about the use of the site for juvenile prostitution which could be used as admissions of criminal conduct,” the attorneys wrote in a 2013 update to the memo. “It was also anticipated that we would find numerous instances where Backpage learned that a site user was a juvenile prostitute and Backpage callously continued to post advertisements for her. To date, the investigation has revealed neither.?
The article also notes how damaging FOSTA and (relatedly) the loss of Backpage has been:
In the weeks after its passage, FOSTA/SESTA felled not only Backpage, but other adult advertising sites like Massage Republic and Cityvibe, and even the Craigslist personal ads section. The impact was tangible: A survey from the sex worker advocacy group Hacking/Hustling found 33.8 percent of respondents reported an increase in violence from clients after the law was signed, and 72.5 percent reported they were facing increased financial insecurity. Advocates related stories of sex workers who were thrust into the arms of pimps in order to find work, or back into abusive relationships for want of somewhere to stay.
The article does note that the founders on trial, Jim Larkin and Michael Lacey, could be highlighting the harm to sex workers that came from taking down Backpage, but instead they’ve focused specifically on the “free speech” arguments.
Whether Larkin and Lacey want this status is less clear. Their pre-trial statement paints them as free-speech warriors valiantly defending ?offensive? and unpopular speech.? Conspicuously missing from the statement, as journalist Melissa Gira Grant pointed out on Twitter, are the words ?prostitution? or ?sex work;? there is only a glancing reference to ?adult advertising.?
Kaytlin Bailey, a former sex worker and host of The Oldest Profession Podcast, says the longtime newspapermen are now telling the wrong story.
?I were in their shoes, the story I would be telling is the story of the survival of their users,? she said, referring to the sex workers who lost their source of income when the site was taken offline.
?They think of themselves as free speech warriors, and I think sex workers think of themselves as in a fight for survival.?
The article also quotes Prof. Alexandra Yelderman, who has been one of the top scholars on the dangers of things like FOSTA and removing sites that facilitated speech, highlighting just how questionable this lawsuit actually is:
Alexandra Yelderman, a visiting assistant professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School, argues that the trial still holds serious significance?more so than the criminal prosecutions of RentBoy, myRedBook, and other adult websites. While those sites only advertised sex work, Yelderman said, Backpage advertised other services, such as housing, cars, and temporary jobs. And everyone should be concerned that the government would jeopardize that kind of speech to get at the other stuff.
?What the Backpage takedown and prosecution is an example of is the government’s willingness to throw all sorts of speech under the bus here, in order to get at speech that?according to the indictment?facilities the crime of prostitution,? she said.
?This is not a trafficking prosecution,? she added. ?This is a case where allegations that [the founders] facilitated prostitution were an impetus for the government to take aim at this entire swath of speech.?
Whether you liked Backpage or not — and it’s fair to criticize some of the company’s business practices — this trial is incredibly important. And given the nature of the subject matter (not to mention some serious concerns about the judge’s conflicts–she’s married to the state Attorney General who campaigned against the website), there’s a decent chance of a ruling here that will set a terrible precedent both for free speech online and for sex workers.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, fosta, free speech, james larkin, michael lacey, section 230, sex trafficking, sex work, user generated content
Companies: backpage
Comments on “Backpage Founders Trial Finally Begins”
Backpage was a great way to gather evidence of trafficking, much like legal bookmaking is a great way to find evidence of gamefixing.
On the whole their existence was a positive.
'We said that content was there and we're never wrong.'
“This is not a trafficking prosecution,” she added. “This is a case where allegations that [the founders] facilitated prostitution were an impetus for the government to take aim at this entire swath of speech.”
It’s even worse than that, as the first quote makes clear Backpage bent over backwards to help law enforcement deal with actual sex trafficking and despite going into the investigation sure that they’d find an entire armory of smoking guns to that effect even those involved in the investigation admitted that they didn’t find anything. Based upon what was noted later that the legal action was started after Backpage refused to play ball and go after legal sex work this would seem to be simply spite and sending a message that refusing to work with the government has consequences, mixed with a heaping dose of corrupt PR stunt.
From the get-go this was a corrupt farce that screwed over not just Backpage but any number of other sites who saw what happened, along with the police and the very sex workers and actual victims of sex trafficking that were held up as justification for the crackdown and the fact that it’s still going on is a travesty and damning show of how eager some people are to weaponize the system for personal gain.
Re: 'We said that content was there and we're never wrong.'
They were just absolutely sure there was child-prostitution being directly facilitated facilitated by the company. Because reasons. No you don’t get to know the real reasons.
Re: 'We said that content was there and we're never wrong.'
A lot of information that has come out since the push for SESTA/FOSTA has made it clear that they were using "sex trafficking" interchangeably for "prostitution."
Also, it was clearly a vehicle for many politician’s careers, particularly Kamala Harris in 2016 and the democrats in 2018 who were courting progressives at the time. Although, the democrats still havent figured out that the progessives fully support legalized sex work. Just one more example of how the democratic party is actually far right of center.
Who can forget Kamala Harris’s speech as Attorney General of California laying out all of the charges against Backpage? Pretty much everything she said in that speech, save for the list of charges, turned out to be nothing but a pack of lies.
Sorry to mention the politics of all of this but I feel it is an important part of how all of this played out.
"…rather than "protecting" women, seems to have put women at much greater risk."
The religious right seems to hate hookers. It strange considering how many right wing government representatives are bought by corporations. Maybe the hate comes from self loathing.
Re: Re:
It’s not that they hate them. It’s that they want them considered sub-human, contemptable, unreliable liars that no-one should ever listen to.
That way when the inevitable comes out, they’ve already discredited the witness, AND made it seem like they were corrupted by the sex worker, and didn’t do it of their own free will and hypocrisy.
Re: Re: Re:
So they can tell themselves they’re better when they just can’t help themselves using their services.
Re: Re:
There was this famous madam in Edinburgh who claimed that her second busiest period was when the general assembly of the Church of Scotland was in session each May.
"“I were in their shoes, the story I would be telling is the story of the survival of their users,”"
That in which the forest was missed for the trees.
While rational people accept that there are people out there doing consensual sex work, there are still people who refuse to believe that is true. That all sex workers are abused children kidnapped & pimped out at the superb owl.
The founders have a long history of fighting for the 1st Amendment and that is the ground they understand & its hard to try and wedge in the emotional ‘ZOMG THEY PIMPED MY BABY’ claims that even the government can’t support with evidence but can try to bring in as an emotional appeal to jurors to ignore the problems with this case.
Look at where the jury is being pulled from, do you for a minute think that those people are going to have the cosmopolitan view that sex workers are workers in charge of their lives or are they going to be recalling every after-school special where jenny tried drugs & ended up pimped out on the streets?
A nation that can’t even admit where children come from, instead using storks & cabbage patches can not handle the idea that some people have sex just for fun or to get paid.
All of those promiscuous gay men having multiple partners!!, while ignoring that its okay for the quarterback to score with all the cheerleaders & then marry a virgin, because only virgins are ‘good girls’. (then flipping out when teh gays dare to want to be married and committed to 1 person as mocking their 6th marriage).
While they could tell a story about how they helped various PD’s rescue kids forced into prostitution, its an icky icky dirty thing we can’t admit to happening in good places & people do truly stupid shit to maintain their illusions. (See Utah & porn is the gateway to Sodom and Gomorrah vs the number of Utah based users of pornhub.)
Re: Re:
My comment is on this excerpt from this comment:
"While rational people accept that there are people out there doing consensual sex work, there are still people who refuse to believe that is true. That all sex workers are abused children kidnapped & pimped out at the superb owl."
A possible implication of this assertion is that it is irrational to think that a large number of "sex workers" (maybe even a majority) do not do what they do for purely consensual reasons–that, even if not subject to abuse as children, physical coercion, etc., they are driven to their occupation by severe economic inequities in our society.
I disagree. For example, read this recent essay by Catharine MacKinnon: http://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/06/opinion/onlyfans-sex-work-safety.html. I do not fully agree with Professor MacKinnon but she is certainly rational and her views are worthy of respect.
Re: Re: Re:
Paywalls suck so I am unable to comment on the oped I can’t read.
Survival sex is a thing, never said it wasn’t.
There are also the smart girls who start stripping at 18, are out by 24 and can pay cash for their degree.
There are some sex workers who embraced their sexuality & took up the worlds oldest profession without have the ‘tragic backstory’ everyone assumes anyone who does sex work must have.
In the face of the media repeating the insane claims of truckloads of teen sex slaves brought to the superb owl, while never having any evidence of it, people have prejudged anyone who gets paid for sex. Its much easier to assume they are all from broken homes, were abused, were hooked on drugs then pimped out.
In the face of those beliefs, the 1st Amendment is much better ground for BackPage to stand firmly on… we live in a nation where some people believe that 600,000+ people did not die and are all crisis actors… no one can convince them otherwise.
There are many reasons people go into sex work, but until we can break the human habit of applying easy labels to difficult topics its impossible to discuss them.
Became a camgirl to make a quick buck.
Walking the street because family threw them out for being Trans & needs to survive.
And before someone brings up all the programs designed to help these people, our nation is also ok with children not getting lunch because they owe a debt for eating school lunch. Humans are really really shitty at seeing the whole picture & taking someone else’s point of view as their reality.
While people want to blame the parents for not making sure their child could afford lunch, how in the hell can the greatest nation not just feed every child in every school every day but we can cut taxes & approve mergers that make billions for corporations?
Re: Re: Re:
Does that include her view that pornography should be banned as a civil rights violation?
Here’s a counterpoint: The Problem With Sex Work Is Work. (Disclosure: Dr. Heather Berg is an acquaintance of mine.)
Re: Re: Re:
Alas, many of us are in such a position. It is not merely sex workers who might prefer a life of leisure. Many of us are forced to work in order to be furnished with food, housing, and the rest.
If you are not forced to work, then you should take the time and try to find a better source of support for your views than a Dwork like MacKinnon.
Unfortunately for the narrative, Melissa Gira Grant is not a criminal defense attorney. I am unwilling to bet against Larkin and Lacey having hired one. I am also unwilling to bet that they are going against their lawyer’s recommended strategy in every point Ms Grant makes.
Yes, the trial is incredibly important. But it is Larkin and Lacey who are on trial, not Backpage, nor yet FOSTA. Keep your eye on the ball.
Re: First amendment badasses
The 1A angle has the advantage that, if they get a socially conservative jury and/or judges that are freaked out by the idea of "sex work", they can win. I hope those guys have some serious, national level lawyers helping their team. Popehat, maybe Marc Randazza (though he has ethics issues), and so on.
And they aren’t charged under FOSTA/SESTA, so that also militates against a constitutional challenge.
Yes, most people who read this are thinking "some people need to get over themselves about sex work", and I hope lots of them are on the jury, but I have no evidence to support that fantasy.
And, here’s a rumor with no evidentiary support: They finally raided backpage because the wrong person at the FBI got themselves blacklisted by some of the sex workers of backpage.
Acorn… Backpage… what’s the next major conservative project to reshape the country to their desired image?
The Importance of Being Earnest
“They think of themselves as free speech warriors, and I think sex workers think of themselves as in a fight for survival.”
Right now, Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin are in a fight for survival as well. They’re in their 70s and could easily die in prison given the amount of time they could get if found guilty.
"The article does note that the founders on trial, Jim Larkin and Michael Lacey, could be highlighting the harm to sex workers that came from taking down Backpage, but instead they’ve focused specifically on the ‘free speech’ arguments."
The free speech they are fighting for happens to be the free speech of sex workers, though it is broader than that. An entire class of speech that was once so common (escorts, sensual massage, etc.) you could find it in the Yellow Pages is now outlawed on U.S. platforms.
Have they spoken up for sex workers rights? They have and now that will be used against them by prosecutors. When they owned Village Voice Media, their papers fought harmful sex trafficking myths: the Superbowl trafficking hoax, the lie of 300,000 kids "at risk" for trafficking, and on and on. The website they started in 2017, Front Page Confidential, has done a number of stories on the harmful effects of FOSTA/SESTA, the takedown of Backpage and the welcome rise of a new pro-sex worker movement.
If we do not make common cause with each other when it comes to sexual expression and freedom of speech, the NCOSEs, NCMECs and NAAGs of the world will surely prevail. They have a singular agenda, and they don’t care if sex workers have no right to advertise or if PornHub goes kaput or if OnlyFans can’t survive or if the Backpage defendants rot in prison.
Re: The Importance of Being Earnest
And, popehat’s and every other criminal defense attorney’s advice, when arrested, is to
"Shut up!"
(Lots of people have talked their way into being found guilty, almost none have talked their way out without considerable care)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Couldn't they use 3d model viewer for virtual porn?
There’s nice use case for 3d computer graphics, for example this site I created yesturday allows displaying 3d models: https://meshpage.org/view.php
This would be perfect to watch 3d models without danger of your copyright material ending up in some large companies’ servers. All activity stays within your computer, at least once the 3d engine has been loaded.
Re:
Virtual porn that is rendered using programs like Source Filmmaker and Blender—both of which will always be more powerful, more user-friendly, and far more successful and well-known than your shit-ass software could ever be—will never replace actual porn. The copyright issue has no relevance to how virtual porn will always seem “off” enough to never be mistaken for the real thing.
Even the most lovingly rendered and detailed virtual porn will never—never—be mistaken for the real deal. And while there may be a certain thrill in seeing characters such as Tifa Lockhart and Aerith Gainsborough getting plowed to (and in) Seventh Heaven, even someone using the best possible models available for those characters will never be able to make them look like real people fucking other real people in a real place.
Oh, and FYI: People already have programs for viewing virtual porn. We call them “video players”. Try using one of those instead of designing software to play a video file in a web browser; I hear MPC-HC recently got an update.
Re: Re: Re:
Mind you, Tero Pukeface’s involvement does prove that ultimately, laws like SOPA and FOSTA are ultimately about making it easier for copyright enforcement.
Re: Re: Re:
Really? I heard it was dead.
Re: Re: Re:
Someone forked MPC-HC from its original GitHub and has been updating it for what seems like a good while. They’ve even put out new stable releases.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Video technology is yesturday’s tech. It has problems with large file sizes, lack of full 3d space, requirements to use expensive camera equipment, it’s always recording the past and you cannot plan the future with it and finally, the hardware acceleration support is lacking.
Basically our opengl based 3d tech is significantly better.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet the only progress you’ve made is to mock Techdirt for not adopting your software. Why aren’t you marketing it for children to use because you think animators and experts are stupid?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
guess awesome technology isn’t enough. You also need to get idiots to use your software. Then you need to maintain a community which will bleed your life force when their feature requests are horrible stuff that ruins the whole technology. Then the press and blogs will bash it to the ground. And then it’ll be forgotten and copyright preservation folks are the only one that still remembers how the technology worked.
Re: Re: Re:3
It actually is. Your problem? Your technology isn’t awesome.
Yes, yes, you think all the other seven billion–plus people in the world are intellectually disabled and you’re the only sane and smart person alive. We get it.
Also what does it say about you that you can’t even get “idiots” (which I’m sure isn’t the word you really wanted to put there) to use your software?
Or they’ll move on to software that adds those features when you refuse to do so. Your inability to build software that people will want to use isn’t the problem of people who want to use software that does what they need it to do (or can be modified to do what they need it to do) instead of only what you want them to do with it and nothing more.
Awww, is the widdle bitch afwaid of criticism?
Which means the tech is irrelevant to anything being done by actual real-world users instead of the dicksucking slaves you envision your users to be in your head. If your software is irrelevant now, why would anyone ever care about it as anything but an atrocity tourism rest stop ten years from now?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
This feature is anyway needed for the stability of the software. The feature-set cannot be open-ended in a finished product, because then half of the features will simply fail to work properly and that’s significantly worse situation than if the feature was missing completely. Broken features are very evil and users will be baffled with how badly the software works. MIssing feature is just that users will do things in different way, but all the ways will STILL WORK…
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
If a toilet is missing its flushing mechanism, telling a user that it’s still connected to the wastewater pipe is meaningless. If I came into your house and removed the ability to flush your toilet and tell you that you can still clean your toilet, you just have to manually scoop out your own shit water and therefore your toilet STILL WORKS, that’s a terrible argument. And that’s why your argument is terrible. "Broken" and "missing" is a meaningless distinction.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
You can’t expect golden toilet with gems and limestone when you purchase products created by small teams (like one person). At most you’re going to get a product that works for the purpose it is built for. The toilets that feature gold, silver, or gemstones are significantly bigger amount of work and also more expensive than the products that we’re able to provide.
Re: Re: Re:7
And yet, you’ve been saying that your product either rivals or outperforms every available 3D rendering program in numerous ways. If that were true, you shouldn’t have any problem getting people to use it.
But between your acting like an entitled asshole (you’re not entitled to a mansion because you wrote a few lines of code), your program being nowhere near as functional as any of your competitors (read: your objective superiors) in the ways people would need it to be functional, and you yourself treating copyright law as something to worship above even God Herself—to the point where you’ve admitted that you would short-circuit your own program to ensure it can’t ever violate even one person’s copyright anywhere in the world—your inability to make people use your program is…understandable.
And that’s before we get into how you’ve continuously changed what the market is for your program. First it’s everyone in the 3D modelling world, then it’s copyright maximalists, now it’s kids—make up your fucking mind, son! Shit or get off the toilet!
You are your own worst enemy, tp. One day, I hope you see that and give up on your unhealthy obsessions with copyright, Meshpage, and proving that you’re a demigod. Go touch grass, then go get some professional help for your obvious mental health issues.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
This is because I didn’t build the project for one single purpose. The gameapi library and builder tool is actually implementing a whole area. This means that with some configuration, it can implement software for any purpose as long as the implementation is available in that implemented area. Once this was implemented, I can move from one purpose to another without problems and my software can cover many use cases and many different requirements, as long as opengl technology can implement it.
This is the big difference between my library and your ordinary software applications. I didn’t choose one aspect to implement and run with it. Instead I implemented all of them at the same time.
Re: Re: Re:9
Therein lies one of your problems.
Therein lies the other.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
The solution that you cannot see is called "projection". I.e. you take (x,y,z) point and project it to 2d plane like this: (x,y,z)->(x,y,_)->(x,y)
When you have large number of purposes(z) already implemented, the projection operator will return you back to the "single purpose" -world where you expect all products are designed in.
Re: Re: Re:11
can you say that again, but in actual English everyone can understand instead of gibberish only you can understand
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
You’re not heavy in math? I thought a person with such a mastery in
questioning technologies other people have created would actually spend their time researching on category theory and how quantifiers in logic worked under limitations of category theory. But guess not.
The math above seems pretty clear to me.
Re: Re: Re:13
No, I am not. And if you can’t explain your concepts to someone at their level, why the actual fuck should they have to do the work necessary to come to yours when they can simply ignore you?
You’re not that good at communicating ideas unless you can communicate the same idea in five different levels of difficulty. (Here’s an example.) When you’re willing to explain on a level that I can understand, I’ll listen. If you’re unwilling or unable to do so, that’s your problem.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’ll note that you didn’t answer the question – why are you bitching to a community of non-users when you could be advertising your software to children?
Nah, this won’t happen. Because you hate the public domain, and you hate the idea of providing tech support to customers using outdated software. So copyright preservation folks wouldn’t bother. They’d just nuke your software out of existence. That’s what you wanted based on "stricter copyright rules" isn’t it?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Yeah, that’s why I keep my software up-to-date, so that it’s fresh new software that customers will always encounter when they are doing business with me.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You mean the software that you mock other users for not having the highest-end software to run, still suffers memory leaks, and only merited you $48 in advertising money? That software? With a total of zero customers?
Forgive me if I’m not on my knees in awe of your thorough insignificance.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Yes. When I keep the software fresh, customers always gets bleeding edge features, which means more and more memory leaks. The operative word is "bloated".
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Only if you’re a bad developer. Oh yeah, that makes sense.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Zero customers getting bleeding edge features is not something to be proud of. The same goes for your mocking of users and the sheer amount of problems you’ve yet to patch or fix. Christ you’re an asshole.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
I can afford it, since my 150 million customers are still thinking if they should throw away my work.
When users are paying peanuts, the quality of the resulting software might not be as good as they hope. More money invested to the activity will fix it. You gotta be kidding us that $48 should buy you software that actually works. You don’t really get what you deserve, but only what you spend money on.
Re: Re: Re:9
[citation needed for this clearly drug-fueled hallucination of a claim]
I paid nothing for Notepad++, Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla Thunderbird, Advanced Renamer, KeePass, PhraseExpress, LibreOffice, the GNU Image Manipulation Program, XnView MP, MP3Tag, QBittorrent, SumatraPDF, and RetroArch. I have never had any serious issues with any of those applications, and they all do well when used for their primary purpose (plain text word processor, web browser, email client, bulk renamer, password manager, text expander, MS Office suite replacement, image editor, image viewer, bulk MP3 tag editor, bittorrent client, PDF/document viewer, and video game emulator).
Maybe your software just sucks, bro.
Aseprite doesn’t cost even half that much. Not only does it work, it works so well that a great many pixel artists consider it their go-to program. (As do I, and that was after several years of using the GNU Image Manipulation Program.)
Maybe your software just sucks, bro.
Again: I’ve spent little-to-no money on the bulk of the programs I use on an everyday basis. I’ve rarely (if ever) encountered any major issues with any of them, and they’re all good-to-great at their primary functions.
Maybe your software just sucks, bro.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
This is why the licenses of those software dismisses the applicaton’s fitness to any particular purpose. Basically if you burn your house with the software, the developers do not (and cannot) take responsibility for the problems. When money is exchanged, this limitation in application developer’s liability is no longer allowed, but instead the developers need to conform to the product safety legislation.
The $48 isn’t per-user cost. It’s the total that I received from the market. Normally each user pays $2 or something.
Re: Re: Re:11
Okay, and…so what? They shouldn’t be held personally responsible for that. They didn’t design the program to “burn [my] house”. (And I fail to see how Notepad++ could commit an act of arson that destroys my whole house, but who knows what the fuck you think anything does in your fantasy world.)
…fucking what
dude, you really gotta stop posting these self-owns, it’s embarassing for everyone (but especially for you)
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
You’re actually dying in laughter when you hear the harsh truth about how well software developers who create copyrighted works are getting their works to the market? Guess what, all software developers have the same problem, and when 90% of startups are failing because users wont be lining to queue your software from authorized vendors, most of them will declare failure of their dreams to conquer the world. Happily I already conquered the world, so there isn’t big hurry to do it again, and there’s 70 years after my death time reserved for the activity. So plenty of time, and the market will be completely different in 20 years already.
Re: Re: Re:13
No, I’m laughing at the fact that you think admitting that you’ve only made $48 from your software is a point of pride.
Jesus tapdancing Christ, you really are a lunatic.
I am 100% sincere in saying this: Please seek professional help for your delusions, which may be a sign of dementia or some other serious mental health issue.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
There’s no shame in mentioning status reports which are the truth. While it might encourage you to bash the project more for lack of progress in marketing area, the technology itself is beyond your critique.
Re: Re: Re:15
There is when you keep saying shit like “I conquered the world”. 48 bux is hardly what anyone would call conquer-the-world money, and yet you’re here acting like it’s a grand accomplishment on the level of being as rich as fucking Elon Musk.
At least when he acts like an asshole, he has money and fame backing him up. What do you have besides a failed experiment in software development and your medically worrisome delusions of granduer?
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
There might be some other activity ongoing in the world than the stuff that generates 48 bucks. Maybe I actually also work hard in other areas than 3d graphics.
Re: Re: Re:17
And maybe I’m actually Elon Musk~.
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
If you’re rich bastard who received some cash from selling of paypal, maybe you have pass some of the cash towards development of technologies called meshpage and gameapi builder. It’ll take just 2 million bucks to get this operation up and running.
Re: Re: Re:19
jfc, and people think I take sarcastic bullshit too seriously
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
And yet, here you are, still gnashing your teeth and swearing at people because you can’t get the Finnish government to use your software and make mansions for you.
The only world you’ve conquered is the sad little splatter of cum you stained your own underwear with because nobody else will worship your chode-sized little incel cock.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
If finnish govt doesn’t seem co-operative, then there’s plenty of other countries available. I heard ireland has flexible system in place, and if I can’t get any other govt to co-operate, maybe usa government will do it. They supposedly have a refugee problem in the border, given Trump’s wall that mimicks berlin wall. I could sell you correct way to support refugees so that they get safe passage to the land of the free…
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
Based on your understanding of how the market works, I don’t think a government would buy water from you even if they were thirsty. You’re that bad.
Re: Re: Re:
Nonsense. There are already CGI humans in big budget movies that people do not realize are CG. This is currently a painstaking and expensive process to get exactly right. It is only a matter of time before a porn film could be produced with CGI actors completely indistinguishable from the real thing, at least to an untrained eye. Maybe 10 years, possibly 20. I doubt longer than that. The idea that it will still be impossible in 100 or 1000 or 10,000 years is ridiculous.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It can be done today, it’s all about how much money you want to spend. My friends thought I was crazy when I in ’92 predicted that it would be possible to partly or wholly create a realistic actor. In ’94 the movie The Crow was released where they used a CGI-version in some scenes of Brandon Lee mapped onto stunt doubles because of his untimely death.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Right, that’s what I mean. It currently would make no sense to do it, as actors are relatively cheap. But these technologies are always getting cheaper, better, faster, and easier to use.
Re: Re: Re:
The trick to getting CGI porn right isn’t the faces—it’s the bodies and the way they interact. CGI porn can’t accurately recreate sex without the artists putting in a lot of work to render genitals (and their interactions) in a realistic way. And that’s to say nothing of varying facial expressions more than once or twice in a small loop, or the way real human bodies subtly change position based on how/where people are fucking, or any number of small details that can’t be easily recreated with a simple video loop.
I’ve seen some good CGI porn. Artists in that field are helped by having access to high-quality models, especially from modern games. But I’ve yet to see any CGI porn that I could mistake for the real deal. While it may look better in the future, it won’t be mistaken for real porn unless a hell of a lot of work is put into doing so—and I mean more work than it would take to, say, have two actual people fuck while wearing costumes and makeup.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Today that is true. Some day in the future, it will be possible to download a couple of character models and have an AI generate and animate their movements in a completely convincing fashion. This stuff is progressing very quickly, and there’s never been a technology that wasn’t used for sex and/or porn. It’s going to happen; it’s only a matter of time.
Re: Re: Re:3
Movements are still only part of the story, though. You also have to consider lighting, skin appearance (e.g., flushed, sweaty), and any other number of variables.
And even if you get past all that, you still have to make it look so lifelike and real that it would legitimately fool the average person rather than fall even a few feet into the uncanny valley. I don’t think that’s ever going to happen.
But on the bright side, the inherent “unreality” of 3D models lends itself well to stylization, which is a big plus when trying to create porn of heavily stylized fictional characters.
…oh, and I fully take responsibility for and apologize for this entire conversation, Mike. ????
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Ever?? So you’re saying improvement in CGI will eventually just come to a halt.
Re: Re: Re:5
No, CGI will continue to improve, but there will always be an inherent uncanniness to it. Even Disney wasn’t able to stay out of the uncanny valley with the young Carrie Fisher CGI in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.
Just to toss an example out there: I don’t think CGI could ever accurately recreate the sex scene in Bound in such a way that I could be 100% fooled into thinking I was looking at real people. And that’s not even a hardcore sex scene—just a really well-filmed one.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
That doesn’t make any sense. Either it will continue to improve until there is no uncanniness, or it will stop improving.
Re: Re: Re:7
CGI will improve such that there is less uncanniness to it over time. But it will never be 100% “fools all the people all the time” good.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
The only way that will never happen is if it stops improving at some point. Unless you’re proposing some sort of asymptotic diminishing improvement over time that never gets there. Which is the exact opposite of how technology in general, and CGI in particular, tends to improve: at an accelerating pace.
Re: Re: Re:9
I’m proposing that while the technology may eventually get there, the amount of work a person would have to put in will be untenable.
I’m not talking only about mimicking the aesthetics—though that is something to consider. (Do you want BangBros-style “handheld cam” aesthetics or Vixen-style “for women” aesthetics?) It’d be about being able to properly account for everything from subtle body movements (both voluntary and involuntary) that can change with each passing moment to how even a light sheen of sweat affects lighting. It’d be about getting every last detail “correct” enough to properly fool people into thinking they’re watching actual people having sex.
Like I said: At some point, it’d honestly be easier to film two people fucking than try to make people believe CGI porn is the real deal.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Ah, glad to see you say that!
The technology will be developed anyway, for feature movies and TV. They will use CGI, because the things they want to show don’t exist in the real world. Those people will continue looking for ways to make CGI better, faster, and cheaper. And they won’t stop until it’s indistinguishable from the real thing, and dead easy. At that point, why would porn producers not use it too?
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Too bad the CGI you see in films have not been done with computers in a long time. They’re all camera technology features, and computer graphics has nothing to do with the cool effects you see in movies.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Well, chalk up another example of you not knowing how filmmaking and post-production actually works, I guess.
Misogyny unbound!
There is one reason and one reason only why they passed this law (FOSTA). It is solely intended to punish women for having sex. The male patriarchy can’t stand it when women have sex without their permission. It’s all about controlling women and punishing those who refuse to be controlled. The fact that sex workers are now suffering violence because of this law is a feature, not a bug.
Same reason why abortion has now been banned in the US, to control women and punishing those who refuse control.
Re:
Or don’t have sex. Slut-shaming and prude-shaming are two sides of the same coin: shaming women for controlling their own sex lives.
Re: Misogyny unbound!
It isn’t banned in the US – just Texas.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
ahhh
So honeypots are a good thing?
Regardless of your mom’s, sister’s, or daughter’s vagina getting ravished for money…it’s a good thing.
OK
Re: ahhh
If your mom, your sister, or your daughter is choosing, voluntarily and without force, fraud, or coercion, to let her vagina be ravished for money… why is that bad?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: ahhh
Only a selfish person who doesn’t love their mom, sister, or daughter would ask such a stupid question.
Let me help you. If you actually loved someone other than yourself, you would be concerned with the mental and physical well-being of others; you wouldn’t want other people to be subjected to physical abuse and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). It’s only a matter of time until you (yourself) comes in sexual contact with someone else’s mom, sister, or daughter that has an undisclosed STD.
You’re probably a pedophile anyway, so never mind.
Re: Re: Re: ahhh
You haven’t actually said why it’s bad, you just put a particularly bad strawman and an ad hominem attack.
Try again or go away?
Re: Re: Re: ahhh
And in all this, you assume a typical male opinion. You don’t give a fuck what the mothers, daughters, and sisters think or want.
You only care what the guys around them think or do. Because the guys should and do have the control. Right?
Re: Re: Re: ahhh
You should really quit while you are behind.
Re: Re: Re: ahhh
[Projects facts not in evidence]
I’ve said for years that, unlike TV shows, law enforcement doesn’t investigate to find the evidence pointing to the guilty party, they pick who they want the guilty party to be and then spend all their time looking for ways to support that theory.
Re: Re:
That’s also how copyright infringement lawsuits are working. You need to pick the target first. Usually it’s the person who pirated the material the most and are clearly visible in the marketplace offering pirated material. This has two advantages: 1) the copyright lawsuit is more likely to succeed 2) the most visible pirate is also gathering most of the illegal rewards.
Basically how it works is that the law allows copyright owners to make a reverse lottery. The lucky winner gets sued for copyright infringement and had to hand over 300k or 2 million bucks to the copyright owners. This damage awards might sound too large, but there’s two aspects that make those damages larger: 1) copyright owners shouldn’t need to collect this reward from multiple parties, so damage award needs to be high 2) the accused pirate is expected to collect the award from his fellow pirates. I.e. the "going to market and collecting rewards" is left to the party that originally avoided doing the right thing…
In practice most accused pirates will just declare bankcrupty and avoid paying the damages, but this just means that collecting money from the market is more difficult operation than the pirates estimated when they pirated the software.
Re: Re: Re:
This was very much not the case. The RIAA historically targeted downloaders, not uploaders, and never the most visible ones.
The number of actual copyright lawsuits brought by the RIAA is two. That’s a laughably poor proportion out of all the people they’ve demanded settlements from over the years. On the topic of copyright lawsuits succeeding, though, most of suits brought by Prenda Law, Malibu Media and Richard Liebowitz haven’t succeeded.
Judges disagree. The sheer number of cases brought by Malibu Media and similar plaintiffs have prompted judges to realize that copyright holders are attempting to get rich off high damage awards. In those cases judges have said that Malibu Media is only entitled to claim damages divided among all the people they accused. Unsurprisingly, Malibu Media closed those suits because the money wouldn’t be worth it.
What "award" are you even talking about? It’s funny whenever your lot talks about piracy and moneymaking, because out of all the major lawsuits against sites like IsoHunt and ThePirateBay, you guys have never been able to find any "money" or "award". You ask for fines in the millions, knowing full well that the defendants can’t pay up, then act all offended when the money simply does not exist.
If you want damages to be paid perhaps you could actually treat copyright infringement like analog, physical theft and charge them based on shoplifting charges – that are far more realistic and affordable. Because as it stands, nobody is paying piracy fines. Not when they’re so astronomical it’s far easier to declare bankruptcy and tell Prenda Law to go fuck itself.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is only because Malibu Media’s copyrighted works are not based on significant amount of effort. Basically they just pressed record button on video camera and called it a day. I expect the damages will be significantly more if the type of the copyrighted work is movies or some other stuff that took significant effort to create.
The bank accounts can go to the negative area, i.e. they get a loan from a bank and pay the fines with the loan. Then it might take 30 years of eating beans and oatmeal before they can get freed from their mistake in their early career.
Re: Re: Re:2
No bank will ever loan someone money to pay a legal fine. What the fuck have you been smoking.
Bold of you to assume that someone with no options for making enough money to survive when they have to pay a massive and disproportionate fine for copyright infringement will live even 30 days, never mind 30 years.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
If bank doesn’t loan the money, they can take their issue to the mafia.
I’m sure someone will hand over the needed money, in exchange for some body parts.
Yeah, but when this one person wins in reverse lottery, his fellow pirates are on the losing side of the equation. Given that pirate groups have connections to other pirate organisations, can’t they easily manage money flows in such way that one pirate paying damage awards can be absorbed by their pirate organisation? It would be sad if one person would have to bear the burden caused by large number of pirates.
Re: Re: Re:4
the actual godforsaken fuck is wrong with you, you sociopathic son of a bitch
No, they’re not. They don’t have to pay the fine. They don’t even have to worry if that one person lives or dies.
jfc, you actually think piracy groups are fucking rich
it’s not even Thursday, and you’re so out of touch that even Hall and Oates are facepalming at you
And yet, that’s the world you and other copyright maximalists have pushed for: a world where downloaders and uploaders alike can be punished to absurd extremes by incredibly powerful corporations for the sake of “protecting intellectual property”.
And don’t try to deny that you’re a copyright maximalist. You’ve openly admitted that you would sabotage Meshpage to the point of non-functionality just so it can never be used to commit even accidental copyright infringement. Hell, the only other thing you seem to worship with the same level of “better than God” religious fervor is yourself.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I don’t thnk that those features where end users need to carefully evaluate the activity’s copyright status before performing the operations are actually contributing anything useful to the blogosphere. Basically end users refuse to start classifying copyrighted works based on their copyright status, and thus there isn’t an implementation alternative that is actually legal to use. And when the activity is illegal, it needs to be filtered out from the world. Thus those features are not available in meshpage.
But there is nothing to worry, there is 600 other features available, so users still have plenty of freedom to choose appropriate feature for each situation.
Re: Re: Re:6
Every feature your software supposedly has could technically be used to infringe copyright. So long as it accepts user input, it can infringe upon someone’s copyright somewhere. You can only prevent Meshpage—or any other application—from being used to infringe copyright by nullifying its ability to accept user input…at which point Meshpage becomes worthless to everyone.
You are so intent on worshipping copyright as a holy deity and treating copyright law as a law above both Man’s and God’s that you are willing to fuck up your own program as a digital form of a blood sacrifice. I’m honestly surprised you haven’t asked anyone to kill themselves for your cause.
…or have you?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Well, in this kind of cases where the possibility cannot be ruled out, our system will be in damage-minimisation-mode. In other words, our software allows DISPLAYING the material inputted, but damage minimisation says that DISTRIBUTE cannot be done via our system. Just like how web browsers are working with user input. Then the place where that potential copyrght problem is pushed to web servers, i.e. the dangerous area, there exists existing warnings that it’s illegal to push copyright infringing material to the web server. And due to many reasons(like our system dont want to know user’s passwords), our software does not try to control the activity where user moves his copyrighted works to the web server. This way users wont be confused when exactly the dangerous operations are happening. We’re also not sending the copyrighted works to torrent sites when we first encouter the material.
Re: Re: Re:8
And it will be at that moment that anyone who wants to use your program will give up on using it and go find a program that will let them save their input to an actual output file. You’re literally admitting that you’re sabotaging your own program for the sake of your above-even-God worship of copyright.
But it would have to. To prevent any kind of infringement, your program would have to control every aspect of what a user does with said program. You can’t let people upload their output to any web site or server, lest their output contain even a fraction of an amount of infringement upon someone else’s copyrighted works. If you did, under your fervent cult-like belief in copyright as an unstoppable supernatural force above the laws of Man and God, you would be aiding and abetting the infringement of copyright.
As I’ve said: The only way to prevent your program from being used to infringe someone’s copyright anywhere in the world is to prevent it from accepting user input. Of course, your program would then be worthless, but at least you’d be able to say you sacrificed your program for the sake of appeasing the holiest of high holy deities and forces that sits above all others known to both Man and God (i.e., copyright). That’s gotta be worth something to you, right~?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
input to our software is in form of a graph data structure. This is our proprietary format that is not available anywhere else in the world. It’s an ascii text file, which contains graph data structure, but it’s completely useless to any other software that isn’t using our library since every line of the file, there’s a dependency to our software library. User uses mouse to create this data structure with our builder tool. The only reason builder tool exists at all, is to make it easier to create this proprietary graph data structure.
What you’re talking about when you consider copyright issues, is the URL links contained inside the graph data structure. Each node can have properties/parameters that specify how to customize our generic software modules to the situation at hand. To use builder tool. the user needs to be able to specify URL for the content items that they want displayed in our builder tool and further to their own web page. The conversion from content files to the URLs understandable by all web based software is left to the user’s own responsibility and that process was significant warnings against publishing copyrighted works. Our builder and our 3d engine only comes into picture once urls to the content files are available, i.e. it deals with content that already exists in the web. On the other hand, our copyright infringement prevention is filtering our URLs which point to new york times or boston herald, since user probably do not have license to use that material. Only content which is in the same domain where user’s homepage is at, will be allowed by the 3d engine. This is enforced in the protected area of the 3d engine, i.e. load_url.php file, which users are unable to bypass, if they want to download material outside their own web host. These practices are keeping the software useful, and allowing all the important operations, while still filtering out clear copyright infringements. This stuff really is very groundbreaking web technology usage, which hasn’t been explored elsewhere.
Re: Re: Re:10
That’s funny, that you think your shit couldn’t be reverse engineered. (Spoilers: It could be reversed engineered if people gave a fuck about it.)
Also, putting aside the fact that an ASCII text file is literally the most open data format in computing: Who th’fuck would to want to use a program that deals in a limited proprietary format and literally can’t share any output outside of the program using that format because its cult-minded creator believes the deity known as Copyright will strike him down with great vengeance and furious anger?
(The rest of your comment is insane gibberish and I refuse to dignify it with a response.)
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
It’s almost like he put up a request for feedback four years ago on places like Reddit and GitHub before quietly removing all references to his source code online because he had reasons.
You can actually test his software, which I did out of brief amusement. Never mind that there’s no interface to select functions and create tools, you have to listen to some 50 year old fat Finnish fuck to upload something he’s already made. Meshpage maybe allows you to interpret specific data and replicate some functions of 3D engines on a webpage without any idea of how to go about doing it. For some reason this brainiac thinks that this somehow entitles him to all the fucks in the world.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Looks like my trolling efforts are starting to pay off. When users actually look at the software, it’s always a win for me. I’ll put a feather to my hat for this archievement and I’ll run back to my cave to write more software.
Re: Re: Re:13
I know you crave attention for the purpose of sexual gratification, tp, but people merely looking at your software isn’t a “win” if they’re not saying anything good about it.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
When they look at the software, they learn new things. They will first bash the technology in public to stay in line with the public executions. But the small bits they learned will be used elsewhere, and soon there will be whole community that wants those features. When that happens, I’m the only one that can actually fulfill their feature requests. And then we’ll have peace.
Re: Re: Re:15
…what the fuck are you even talking about, who the fuck is being executed for daring to look at Meshpage
seriously, I want names and dates and details because of all the fucking claims you’ve made, implying that people are being killed for looking at your software is so completely disconnected from reality that you’re seriously coming off as someone who legitimately needs professional medical treatment with anti-psychotic medications
You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are not God. And you sure as shit are not the only coder on the planet. Whatever you can do, someone else can—and probably do it better than you, if they cared enough to put in the effort.
And that still assumes whatever functionality you think other people would want to copy from Meshpage is both wanted by people who use programs that are industry standards and couldn’t be duplicated by a handful of code monkeys spending a weekend binging Cheetos, Tab, and Mountain Dew while they fundamentally wreck all your shit.
The reason you don’t see people clamoring for the functionality of Meshpage in Blender is because nobody cares about Meshpage’s functionality enough to duplicate it. Even if enough people saw what Meshpage could do in your hands (and yours alone, given all your talk of sabotaging the program so third parties can’t do shit with it), there’s literally nothing it can do—nothing whatso-fucking-ever—that Blender and its brethren can’t already do for people who need to use those programs in the real world.
I know you hate other people, tp, but they’re the ones who would have to use Meshpage. Are you going to do all their rendering and modeling and such for them 24/7? If not, your program needs to at least compete with Blender on basic goddamn functionality that actual people use in actual situations in actual reality. Your fantasy world where only you can use Meshpage properly is, I’m sure, a place you love—but staying there will only ensure that you and your program die in obscurity.
Do you want people to use Meshpage? Because being a professional troll, insulting all of humanity, admitting to wanting to sabotage your own program for the law above both Man’s and God’s (i.e., copyright), and basically acting like a goddamn lunatic isn’t how you’ll convince people to use Meshpage.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
What I can do with meshpage is exactly the same featureset than what 3rd parties can do with it. I didn’t give myself special priviledges which would make me god that cannot be questioned in my little sandbox.
But this only applies to the end users. Developers are different matter, since I actually have the source code and they don’t. This is a small power play against other software developers. But ordinary end users should not worry too much about it.
Re: Re: Re:17
Thank you for proving my point.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
The only reason why I had an idea of what a piece of 3D modeling software should be capable of is because I actually went through courses for it in vocational university. I sat in a lab with other like-minded peers for lessons on Blender, 3dsmax and Maya.
I can tell you that what Meshpage can offer pales in comparison to what’s already out there, but given how many times you’ve been told that no one would use Meshpage over another competitor, it’s obvious that you’ve got your head firmly shoved up your own ass too much to recognize this.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
And I can tell you why it’s still worth developing this technology. The main reason is copyright. I actually own the copyright of the technology. These "already out there" -technologies do not have that ownership bit available for me. This is what it means for copyright to be "promote progress and useful arts". Basically to receive this ownership bit, I will work hard to get good technology output, and this will benefit the whole society as long as many people around the world will do the same. But messages where "it’s not worth the effort since there already exists technologies that can do the same" are against these principles of "promoting progress" since at some point those technologies will mature and competitors will disappear and other technologies will make different features important, and technology progress need to be reinvented all the time. This reinvention needs to happen even in areas where there already is available technologies for exact the same purpose. Different market areas are bleeding for technologies, simply because they cannot understand english or their computers are not powerful enough to run unreal engine or blender. Or they don’t work in the web, when the developers decided that win32 featureset is required before the software is willing to start up. There’s all these kinds of limitations available in software, and thus the innovations of all these technologies are needed. It’s the promote progress and useful arts that comes from people who try to obtain access to this magical "copyright ownership bits".
Re: Re: Re:17
Yes, yes, you literally worship the concept of copyright as if it were a holy supernatural deity and literally treat copyright law as a sacred law above both Man’s and God’s. We get it, you cultist whackjob.
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
Mate, Shiva Ayyadurai owned the copyright to his "EMAIL" program. Not only is his name not cited as one of the people responsible for modern email software, he lost a lawsuit against this site in a bid to get a judge to legally state he invented email. If this is the value of copyright, it’s a poor deal.
Considering you failed the first half of that statement, I’m not counting on society to be cashing in on the benefits of your philosophy any time soon.
Your voiced tutorials are hosted in English. Language is not the issue here. The same goes for your claim that machines aren’t powerful enough to run other software. You yourself claimed that your own code is inefficient and results in data loss.
None of the above is actually guaranteed by copyright. Your dedication to the RIAA is noted, but will not mean anything significant in the long run.
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
They never said that the author will benefit. It’s "to promote the progress of science and useful arts"… they never promised that the deal is good. The society will benefit from it, but that’s about it.
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
And if you believe that the author wouldn’t benefit… why ask us for money? Why ask anyone for money if you think society will benefit from it? If this is a knowingly poor deal, why get angry when you willing threw yourself into it?
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
That’s a lot of effort for a dogshit yield, mate. But when you think that a teenager rubbishing your software on a blog nobody else reads is such an astounding testimony you feature an insult on your website, it’s very clear that you have no fucking idea what "pay off" means.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
There is easy way around this problem, but sadly sending spam to your email boxes is also illegal activity. So a little bit of effort needs to be used, since I’m not facebook which have rooms full of servers doing nothing but send spam to people who have not yet joined their network.
Instead I try to do things properly. I.e. get grassroots phenomenon ongoing, and starting from the biggest problem place, i.e. techdirt. All the dirtbags are available, so it’ll be good ammunition for improving the quality of the offered product.
Re: Re: Re:15
Maybe where you live. Here in the U.S., spam is literally protected speech under the law.
Yeah, no, Facebook doesn’t do that shit. If it did, I’d be getting Facebook spam to multiple email addresses—and I can assure you that I’m not.
omg you think this place is a problem
bitch go to 4chan and endlessly peddle your shit there; I promise they’ll be much more of a problem that a handful of people metaphorically handing your ass back to you on a regular basis will ever be
You’ve been told how shitty your program is and you haven’t done a single goddamn thing to make it better. If anything, you’ve openly admitted that you’d make it worse just to shit on the people who might actually use the program but aren’t you.
Please seek professional medical help for your delusions, as they may be a sign of a serious mental illness.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
This page was implemented this week(started last saturday): https://meshpage.org/view.php
Re: Re: Re:17
Okay, and…so what? That still doesn’t make your software worth using—especially over programs considered to be industry standards. Come back when you’ve got a program that can outshine RPG Maker on the fucking PlayStation 1 and we’ll talk, you mentally deranged asshole.
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
Half the world doesn’t even know what playstation 1 is and have not heard about rpg maker. Also it doesn’t work on my brand new ibm pc from 1980s. And the and android support is lacking. It also has poor support for gltf file format.
Re: Re: Re:19
The same could be said of Meshpage, only to a far greater extent.
oh my god no wonder Meshpage sucks, you’re designing it for hella outdated technology
oh my god, seriously, why would you ever fucking admit that
Re: Re: Re:20 Re:
This is a feature, not a bug.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
I’ve noticed that most, if not all, activities related to copyright fanboys requires illegal activity.
Why do you think people will support someone who regularly claims that he will pay the government and hold people to ransom to use your software? Why aren’t you talking to actual software developers who might have insight on how your stuff should work, or the intended market for your software, i.e. children?
If you want actual dirtbags, or "all the dirtbags", you should seriously consider the likes of 8chan or Parler. They’d probably welcome a lunatic like you with open arms.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
I’m too old for 8chan
and parler supports Trump. That kinda kills your otherwise good ideas.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Its probably not worth the effort to reverse engineer it. Basically you’d need to do evil operations like clone my whole library and replicate all its functionality, and then you’d just have a broken library that was illegal to distribute anywhere else than your own private caves. It’s simply too much effort and end result will be inferior to the solution that I have available.
What makes it illegal is the fact that it needs to clone my whole software structure/SSO. Google vs Oracle lawsuit already tried this approach and thus we know that big companies are lining their operations to get this practice accepted by the courts.
Re: Re: Re:12
For once, you’re right: Even the simplest effort to reverse engineer your program would be wasted since, as we’ve long established and you’ve long admitted, nobody uses your shit in the first place and you’d sabotage it for the glory of Copyright even if they did.
That’s not “evil”, that’s how open source programming works.
…oh, wait, right—you believe open source programming is the combined work of Satan, the Christian God, Jesus Christ, Allah, Odin the All-Father, Zeus, the Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Xenu that is trying to destroy the higher deity that is copyright. Silly me, what was I thinking.
What makes that statement meaningless is the fact that you’re literally the only person who takes your software so seriously that you’re threatening lawsuits and jail time and probably divine retribution on behalf of Copyright over a program you admit no one uses and you know will never change a goddamn thing about the 3D modeling/rendering industry.
Nobody is going to clone your shit because nobody cares about your shit. Nobody is going to use your shit because it is shit. And since I’m someone who will suffer the exact same fate, trust me when I tell you that you will die in complete obscurity and you can do nothing to prevent that fate.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
even if that were true, you cannot know this, simply because you’re not the one who tried the software. The feather came from someone else, and you cannot change the fact any longer that you’re not at the bleeding edge of technology development. Someone called anonymous coward took that crown from you.
Re: Re: Re:14
I’ve seen Meshpage’s output; it’s barely better than the visualizers that were built into WinAMP some 20 years ago. And for someone who claims their program will prevent copyright infringement, you couldn’t even stop yourself from infringing on the copyrights of Scott Cawthon. I know your software is shit because you’ve proven it’s shit.
Two things.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
Hi. I tried your "software for children" for all of twenty seconds. It’s shit, and I know it’s shit, because I’ve seen your shit. That feather is dipped in horse crap, and the fact that you’re willing to wear it in your hair is… first and foremost, disturbing and creepy as fuck. But not surprising. You copyright fans were always one hell of a fucked up bunch.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
You’re already scared what all children can do with the technology? Soon they’re able to beat your organisation for creating animations to youtube, even though the technology looks (to a grownup) too complicated that children shouldn’t touch it with a long stick. When our technology is helping children, and the more mature people need to start from scratch developing these technologies, the children can actually beat other people by a landslide. Soon they’ll be opening xmas presents and unboxing lamborghinis with the money they receive from their 3d activity.
Re: Re: Re:16
You might have a point here if any actual children were using it. But as you’ve admitted over and over and over and over and over again—for reasons I can’t possibly fathom, other than maybe a sense of self-hatred so strong that you receive sexual gratification from humiliating yourself in front of others—no one is using Meshpage. As for the rest of your bullshit, holy shit, you’re delusional as fuck and you seriously need to seek professional medical help for your obvious mental illness.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
I’m not only not scared, I’m not concerned with what children can do with your tech. Partly because you’re promoting your tech to, as you put it in your own words, "dirtbags" instead of actual children. Partly because children are already producing plenty of content on their own. Minecraft. Roblox. Cosmetics and hats for Team Fortress 2, or hosting their own Garrys mod servers. None of this involves the tech you vividly claim to be designed for them.
But don’t take my word for it. You could literally bring your tech to any school in Finland and demand the kids build you a mansion with it, and you won’t get the results you want.
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
Government controls tightly what stuff is being teached in finnish schools and companies (or nerds) cannot really change the content they’re teaching. This is why the mansion plans need to go through government.
Re: Re: Re:18
you will never live in a mansion
go touch grass
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
your jealous attitude is shining brightly. Maybe you can tune down the brightness.
we’re here to win all the challenges, perfectly execute our duties, and provide software with accuracy that hasn’t been available anywhere else in the world. That’s our task. We will exterminate all the blockers that you throw in our way. And it will succeed to bring proper copyrights to the world. The new limitations will focus our efforts to make world a better place and then we will have peace.
mansions are already on their way, government has already shown what they are capable of, and while it never is what you expect, any small response from them is helping.
Re: Re: Re:20
please seek professional medical attention for your obvious mentall illnesses
Re: Re: Re:21 Re:
You need some etiquette training:
https://thebritishschoolofetiquette.com/etiquette-training/
Please submit your etiquette exam questions to the web site above.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
There is no "our". You have one person working on non-functioning code, i.e. Tero Pulkinnen, and an imaginary marketing team whose one contribution to date has been one London bus demo reel.
That’s a very long paragraph just to say "I can confirm that I have deleted the Publish/Distribute feature on my own software".
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
You’re the one who claimed that crowbar doesn’t need to implement the feature which makes it safe against jewelry store robberies… Now you’re taking opposite view on the same topic.
Either you want the features implemented or you don’t want implemented features, but you cannot choose both at the same time.
Your position is now logically inconsistent.
Re: Re: Re:10
And as soon as you can come up with some way for a crowbar to magically detect when it’s being used as part of a crime—something that would literally require supernatural powers for you to pull off—you would have a point here. But you can’t. So you don’t.
You’re the one saying you literally can’t implement the features because it would allow people to infringe upon copyright. Your position is logically inconsistent because you keep saying you’ll sabotage your own program to save your high holy deity (Copyright) but now you’re whining that people are pointing out how you doing that will actually sabotage your program.
Either you’re willing to “risk” people using your program to maybe commit a possible infringement upon copyright or you’re not. If you’re not, you don’t get to bitch about people pointing out how removing the features that would let them do so is literally wrecking your own shit for the sake of appeasing corporations that would sooner kill you where you stand, piss and shit on your corpse, and feed your desecrated body to a pit full of starving dogs afterwards than “reward” you in any way for metaphorically sucking their dicks.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
General public thinks that programmers are beyond god and have supernatural powers because they can implement technologies that ordinary humans have no way to implement or understand.
It’s not your position to decide that this feature is impossible to implement. Our software developers will do the decision for you, and their solutions are giving sometimes amazing results, and ordinary humans are not yet ready for all those groundbreaking results. So it’ll take time before marketing folks can find an angle which makes ordinary humans accept that these practices are actually possible with current technology. But that’s how technology progresses.
Re: Re: Re:12
[citation needed]
You literally cannot create a crowbar that instinctively and objectively knows when it is being used in the commission of a crime.
…fucking what
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
They kind of do, which is why you have dumbass politicians who believe that encryption can be altered to magically predict whether the user is a good guy or has malicious intent. It’s fundamentally not possible for numbers or code to do this. The same thing goes for a copyright infringement detection system that copyright fans insisted would not need to include filters, following which they admitted that filters were actually necessary.
Again with the "our"! There is no fucking "our". You chose to work alone. This constant insistence that you have a team when you have made it abundantly clear that you can’t stomach the idea of working with other people is just sad. It’s kicking-a-puppy-across-the-living-room levels of sad.
And what’s your marketing folks gonna do next, TWO adverts on a London bus? I’m not holding my breath waiting for you to finally grow some competence.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Sadly for you, that wasn’t me. But I believe the original poster you were arguing with was pointing out that your demand that all products preemptively prevent crime before being allowed onto the market is a false statement.
You’re the one who made the decision to remove your users’ ability to publish. That’s on you.
Whined the professional troll.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
This isn’t even true. The publish operation is available as long as they do it on their own web server. And then we’re talking about people with web development hat on, and that activity has it’s own rules which should be followed. Basically our technology allows those web developers some techniques that would otherwise not be available to them, especially the creation of custom web sites which contain 3d graphics. There’s instructions in the faq how to do it.
Re: Re: Re:12
As opposed to Blender and other programs of its kind, which allow end users who aren’t web developers to save their output and share those files with other people. You’re flat-out admitting that your program has less functionality than Blender, a program you keep saying Meshpage is either on par with or better than, while also admitting that only a small subset of people who use Meshpage will ever be allowed to use even your limited version of that functionality.
Please seek professional help for your dissociative identity disorder.
What the fuck can Meshpage do that Blender can’t? Can Meshpage output render/model files to a format that can be shared with other users? Can it output video files that can be uploaded to video sites or other web servers? Seriously, what can Meshpage do that Blender can’t, that isn’t dependent on a belief in the supernatural to work correctly, and that people—real people in real life under real everyday working conditions, all of which you are clearly unfamiliar with—would actually need it for?
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
That "saving" was cool technology in 1980’s when microsoft word introduced ctrl-s to the world. Guess what, ctrl-s is still used by gameapi builder. You just haven’t tried the technology, so you wouldn’t know that saving is actually possible with our technology.
Re: Re: Re:14
And yet, by allowing people to save their output to a file format, you’re risking the possibility of them sharing a potentially copyright-infringing file with others. You keep saying your software can (or will be able to) magically detect and prevent all instances of copyright infringement. But if someone manages to sneak something past your oh-so-flawless system (like you were able to do without even knowing you did!), how do you plan to stop them from sharing that something without preventing them from saving their output in a way that can be shared?
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
Good luck with reading the file with anything other software than gameapi builder. And if you use gameapi builder, we know that you created the material yourself, since other people are not using the tool. See how your own arguments are closing on on you. When builder doesnt have any users, all created files available on internet that was created using our proprietary file format are free of copyright problems.
But this isn’t enough, our technology save files doesn’t even store the actual content items. It just stores URL to the material, and the actual content needs to be in your own web server.
There is different file format available (for slightly different purpose) which is used to store actual content files too. But that’s more like releasing package format, similar to unity packages. But anyway the save files are not really able to do copyright infringement.
And the file format for save files is ascii, for the purpose of copy-pasting those snippets around. I learned this trick from the browser’s view-source dialog.
Re: Re: Re:16
Reverse engineering is still a thing, bro. And even assuming that doesn’t happen, one of the reasons people save an output file in a format native to a given application is so they can open that file in that application on another computer. (That’s perfectly legal, too, in case you were about to flail around and say otherwise.) How th’fuck do you expect to prevent two different people using your application on two different computers from saving an output file that contains copyright infringing material and transferring it to the other’s computer without being God?
You say this, but you yourself violated copyright using a program used by literally nobody else but you. How are you so bad at this.
Then your shit is pointless. Someone may need to use a computer that is disconnected from the Internet; how can you expect them to access (or transfer) data from your program to that computer without using the Internet? This is the entire problem with your dumbassed “teleporting” bullshit: Not everyone uses programs and transfers data in the same way as you do (or you want them to do), but instead of accounting for how actual people in actual reality actually do things and adjusting how your program works in accordance with that knowledge, you basically tell everyone “fuck you, do it my way or you’re an idiot who can’t understand my better-than-everyone-else-and-you-know-it brilliance” and demand they do it your way.
…says the guy who claims one of his programs can automagically prevent all copyright infringement but still managed to accidentally infringe upon a copyright while using that program.
then your format is open as all hell and could be reverse engineered by enough people doing enough work over enough time
you think it can’t happen, but people did that shit for Grand Theft Auto games, and those are far more complex than your shitty-ass Meshpage program, so quit thinking you’re invincible
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
curl supports urls with the format file:///c:program files etc kind of urls. This nicely accesses your own filesystem without having anything to do with network access.. GameApi builder is very nicely working with this stuff, as long as you don’t need to put the end result to the internet. And even then it’s just changing the urls to point to something on the web.
Re: Re: Re:18
So…if someone built a game using this software, but they literally couldn’t show it to anyone else because you basically told them to go fuck themselves for the protection and glorification of the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful Copyright (hallowed be that high holy deity and its sacred-above-all law), you would seriously consider that a win for everyone involved?
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
Well, there’s tutorial in the faq how to place the resulting 3d models and a game to their own web page in their own web server. My builder tool is not controlling whatever activity happens on their own web server. They could keep the pages as released by builder, or they could try to improve their web page to attract more users to it or even market it in "london" buses if they so wish.
So your claim that they couldn’t show it to anyone else is simply false.
Re: Re: Re:20 Re:
So you’ve confirmed that your tool can’t actually prevent acts of copyright infringement via your software, gotcha.
Re: Re: Re:21 Re:
at least i dont need to encourage people to do it…
Re: Re: Re:22
you’ve been saying that your tool will automagically stop any possible copyright infringement
you couldn’t even stop yourself from doing it
and now it’s "well at least I don’t encourage it"
how are you so fucking bad at everything
Re: Re: Re:23 Re:
You didn’t realize that it did stop possible copyright infringement. It just needed your input. I simply cannot know beforehand who owns the original models if the "author" who licenses it claims to be the owner. Once the input arrived, I did the right thing and pulled rug from under the models.
Re: Re: Re:24
you keep saying meshpage is gonna stop all infringement before it even happens, but it didn’t even stop you
how do you expect it to stop literally anyone else without it using some actual goddamn supernatural magic powers
my god how can you be this fucking dense without collapsing in on yourself
Re: Re: Re:25 Re:
Well, I have magic powers available, i.e. manually checking all the content against problems in the area. And listening input from the trolls who try to find all failures from my software…
If you cannot trust trolls, who can you trust?
Re: Re: Re:26
literally impossible; you can’t check against every known copyrighted work in the world and prevent all copyright infringement without actual goddamn supernatural magic
hell, you can’t even stop your own accidental infringement, which you could’ve (and should’ve) done by checking the copyrights on that FNAF model yourself
and if you can’t do that, you sure as hell won’t be able to account for Fair Use infringement
you’re so fucking awful at everything, dude
Re: Re: Re:27 Re:
This assumes that (p_1,p_2) -style pairing is required to do the check. This isn’t true.
I did check it, and the copyright notice said that some guy from sketchfab owns the material. It didn’t say anything that they cloned some characters from a tv-show.
This isn’t required. The blocks that my software implements do not need to follow copyright minimalist -dividing lines. It’s enough that maximalist rules are being followed.
Re: Re: Re:28
no one outside of your copyright cult wants to use software that prevents them from so much as even trying to, say, create fanart – which is technically illegal under the most maximalist reading of copyright law
your refusal to understand other people and how they work and play is your problem, not theirs
lmao you fucking suck
Re: Re: Re:29 Re:
You mean the fanart where your small fan project wants to ride on someone else’s popularity, and thus they create superman posters and instead of creating your own superhero characters and getting them popular, you’d create superman posters without license from the superman company.
Basically "riding on someone else’s popularity" is again dangerous pattern in copyright laws. You might get popularity with this, but sadly your puny organisation cannot handle the popularity it attracts. All your effort goes to waste, when you get instant popularity while your monetizing system has not been implemented yet. Proper technology companies are first implementing their own technology, and monetizing system will come after your own tech is ready. But no, you want popularity immediately, without your org having any chance of dealing with the fallout.
Basically it’s just waste of time.
Re: Re: Re:30
you don’t even understand why people make fanart
jfc you really do hate and want to kill the rest of humanity
Re: Re: Re:31 Re:
they do it to gain undeserved popularity.
Re: Re: Re:32
lmaono
go back to dreaming about being able to Thanos-snap everyone out of existence, you pest
Re: Re: Re:32 Re:
Then make your own computer platform, your own electricity, your own language, your own user interface that doesn’t look suspiciously like Unreal’s Kismet, your own graphics engine instead of cribbing off OpenGL, your own market of animators and content creators for modeling software instead of the existing market.
Re: Re: Re:33 Re:
Well, this usually happens at beginning of each project. For example when I started the meshpage/gameapi builder project, the first step in the process is to peel off layers from already available technologies. The amount to peel off depends on how large project I want to attempt. Basically starting from opengl layer means there’ll be significant effort to reach the level what users are expecting. It took 8 years to get all necessary technologies reinvented.
Re: Re: Re:26 Re:
Do you, though? You’ve consistently sat here for, what, three to four years. You’ve routinely rubbished and disagreed with everyone pointing out why some of the claims you’ve made just don’t work. You’ve called us pirates and trolls for disagreeing that people should pay you money for vacuous, impossible claims.
You clearly don’t trust trolls. Now you want us to trust you?
Re: Re: Re:24 Re:
This would be an appropriate defense if copyright supporters like you haven’t been consistently claiming that "ignorance of infringement is not an excuse". You not knowing that someone else made that model would not be considered an acceptable defense, by your own admission, if the case ever made it to court.
No, based on "stricter copyright rules", the "right thing" would have required you to take down Meshpage, pay an expensive fine, and rot in jail for a significant number of years for the "statutory damages" you inflicted.
The fact that you won’t even hold yourself accountable is proof that "stricter copyright rules" are horseshit that wouldn’t even pass a laugh test for legal standards.
Re: Re: Re:22 Re:
Are you claiming that Blender, Maya, 3dsmax and all other similar software have the developers encouraging piracy? That’s a bold assumption. I’m sure it’ll hold up in a defamation lawsuit.
Re: Re: Re:23 Re:
They all implemented a feature called "import/export 3d model from standard file formats" in their software. This feature just happens to be dangerous copyright-wise, considering that mp3 files were pirated significantly and it had this kind of import/export from mp3 files implemented. Basically that feature is enabler for piracy.
Sadly I also implemented the feature in my software, since internet is screaming bloody murder if you don’t have it implemented. So cannot really blame those software developers for listening market demands. The market players are simply demanding enablers for piracy.
Of course the feature has some non-infringing uses too, but that’s besides the point. You just asked where is the blender/3dsmax developers encouraging piracy. And there you have it.
Re: Re: Re:24 Re:
A minor note still to this… The claim that "at least I dont need to encourage people to do it" is still true, even if I implemented import/export…
Basically how our version of the feature works is that I simply didn’t implement the feature to its full flexibility, i.e. our export options are very limited, and import features are checking for copyrights with domain restrictions. So I’m actually doing the feature in better way than how those other vendors are handling the copyright-dangerous feature.
Basically lazy approach that those other vendors are doing, i.e. taking an existing library and let it import/export all file formats equally well, will result in a feature that encourages piracy (of those files)
Re: Re: Re:25 Re:
Providing compatibility with file formats isn’t an encouragement of piracy, no matter how much you want to desperately believe it is.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
So let’s digest this paragraph – you claim that Meshpage preemptively prevents copyright infringement based on "copyright status", and yet you don’t have features that allow end users to evaluate this on their level, despite mentioning in various threads that you staunchly, firmly believe that users must be held responsible for potentially infringing copyright with the software they use. That’s not the pro-Meshpage argument you seem to think it is.
Ah, yes, users will no longer be able to infringe copyright because you removed their ability to publish or create circles. It’s only a matter of time before the users in your twisted fantasy realize that they can infringe copyright on mansion blueprints, too. Which would not be as farfetched as you might think, because it’s already happened. And then you can kiss your government mansion plans goodbye.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Yes. It’s enough to prevent use cases which have copyright problems. Current trend seems to be that the only way to innovate is to stretch legal limits, i.e. go to the illegal area. This is what made youtube popular, they had ingredients that looked strongly like a pirate site, but which still claimed to be clear from legal troubles.
Re: Re: Re:8
Motherfucker, you couldn’t even prevent yourself from using Meshpage to infringe on a copyright held by someone else, and you still believe you can prevent everyone else from doing the same thing anywhere in the world?
Except no, it isn’t. You only think that because you see copyright infringement everywhere, and that’s because you’re in desperate need of serious and legitimate professional help for a mental health disorder.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
This allows me to avoid the biggest problems while developing technologies. While I cannot foresee everything, fixing significant number of problem places still gives me serious advantage over other sites which are being accused of piracy all the time.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Mate, you can’t even allow your users to publish or display anything without overheating their machines. You couldn’t fix a problem place if it gave you gastroenteritis.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
No, it didn’t. There is nothing revolutionary about the fact that you took down one infringing 3D model when it was pointed out to you. This is something any website or developer can already do. Your "innovative tech" is nothing more than marketing smoke and mirrors, and not even good marketing at that.
True, which is why judges have realized what your copyright lawyers have tried to do, and punished them accordingly.
Unfortunately for you and your RIAA heroes, your copyright claims on YouTube don’t hold water. They haven’t held water for a decade.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
You gotta be kidding us. Half of youtube videos have a comment in them that "copyright not assumed" or some other stupid shit that explains to all users that the "author" pirated the material from hollywood movies and after finding out that youtube refuses to delete submitted videos, they went and changed the comment field to avoid liability.
Re: Re: Re:10
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
I’m not going to dig through youtube or the web to find warez for you. You can do that all yourself.
Re: Re: Re:12
Then I have no reason to consider your claim to be anything more than the deranged delusions of someone in severe need of professional mental health treatment.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
And here’s something you should already know – if someone pulls something off like that, a copyright holder is fully entitled to ask YouTube to transfer all ad revenue and related monies from that upload to them. In fact, this is something that Techdirt regularly reports on. Especially when it results in, for example, a movie reviewer discussing a film losing out on the ad revenue of their video, even without actually showing the film, because someone claimed his ad revenue.
If your rampant claims were that much of a slam dunk, you’d be able to prove it in court. But you don’t, because you can’t. All you have is a sad, pathetic bluff based on your personal utopia of how you think the laws should work.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
There’s significant problem with this pattern. Normally the hollywood movie licensing costs are significantly larger than what youtube pays to authors. And the cost will be tribled if it was published without permission, i.e. pirated. And this situation has both aspects in them. If youtube is truly using this as a grounds for not taking down pirated material, then they’re really committing copyright infringement.
This concludes our proof that youtube is a pirate site.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
You’re confusing the costs that Hollywood has to pay actors and authors (whose work a Hollywood movie may be based on) with the revenue YouTube pays content creators. The fact that platforms have different payment plans is… not actually damning information whatsoever. If I buy a music CD, and one of the hit singles is played over free-to-air radio sponsored by the government, the government has not suddenly pirated the song just because I heard something for free.
Plenty of stuff doesn’t get taken down from YouTube for various reasons. Including the fact that music is uploaded by the original content creator. In the context of movies, plenty of footage triggers the YouTube algorithm and thus is taken down automatically.
I’m not sure how you constantly fail to acknowledge that YouTube is far stricter and stringent than most hosting sites when it comes to copyright enforcement, but then I remember you’re a hypocrite who hates the fact that fair use and the public domain exist, and then it all makes sense.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
"fair use" that allows taking snippets smaller than 3 words is not going to save the folks who pirated a whole hollywood movie.
and copyright owners have decided that the hollywood movies is nowhere near public domain.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Well, if the movie company has decided that it’s worthwhile to release the movie if everyone who watched it pays $100 for it, and then youtube without permission offers the same content with $30, who are you going to purchase it from?
Basically youtube can only offer it with such small price because they don’t handle paying the cost of creating the content. I.e. the material is pirated, and their piracy site can offer cheaper price for end users than anyone who properly licenses the content.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
If the cheaper pricing was offered without permission, then sue the platform for doing so. Offering something cheaper is not by itself a crime. Again, a legal free-to-air radio station can play a hit single over the air, and I wouldn’t need to pay anything for hearing it. That doesn’t make the government-approved radio station illegal. Despite what the RIAA wants to claim.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Or as a much simpler solution the person just files for bankruptcy and doesn’t have to pay the fine because it’s that ridiculous. It’s perfectly legal – because it’s been used by copyright holders to avoid paying their fines after losing their lawsuits. Exhibit A: Perfect 10 and Norman Zada.
No, they’re not. You’re confusing this with filehosting sites like Filesonic who quietly minimized their services after Megaupload got nuked. Actual pirate release groups will frankly not give a single solitary fuck if one of their rivals got arrested.
One, you once again assume there exists a "money flow". Beyond the payment for site operations and server maintenance there is no "money flow". If there was a "money flow", the governments of the world would have easily tracked those down. They have yet to do so, or present any evidence that would suggest such a movement.
Two, there is no pirate organization. The entire point of piracy is to operate independently. That’s basic operational security.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
This isn’t true. There will be humans shuffling pirated material around, opening file locker locations and placing pirated material there and posting urls to the warez. There also will be servers that needs to be maintained, web sites to be kept up and running, moving server around the country to different isp etc once the isp receives enough dmca notices and are shutting down the operation’s original location etc.. this all requires humans to operate. It’s called pirate organisation.
closing yourself to a cave with no water never really worked out too well.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
None of the above even remotely requires the people involved to be openly or privately collaborating. They don’t even need to be in the same group. That’s why there’s no organization. That’s why when sites like Megaupload, Hotfile and ISOHunt were taken offline, piracy and downloads continued unabated.
And yet here you are.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
In a sense… you’re not wrong. It’s likely that pornographic movies are not as labor-intensive as mainstream cinematic blockbusters, and for that reason Malibu Media actually came very close to losing copyright protection not just for their content, but a German court seriously considered the idea that pornography as an industry did not deserve copyright protection. (Which would have completely fucked over your argument that people need to pay Malibu Media for the porn they didn’t download, but I can’t say you ignoring this point is a surprise at this stage.)
Damages for copyright aren’t based on the work involved, not to the degree you insist. At the end of the day copyright holders want to make money off of these settlements. Bringing a copyright case to full criminal trial doesn’t benefit them. It costs them money they’d rather not spend, and it requires copyright holders and their lawyers to present evidence that has never passed the laugh test. This is why rightsholders push for settlements, typically in the low ends of the thousands range, regardless of whether it’s music or movies that’s being infringed.
Why would a bank give a loan to someone that the bank knows won’t be able to pay back the loan? It’s funny you think this is an option, or you think this is going to see the rightsholders get their hands on that negative money. They already tried that with the two cases they got guilty verdicts on, Joel Tenenbaum and Jammie Thomas-Rasset. To date, at least a decade after their verdicts, neither Joel nor Jammie have paid a single cent of those ridiculous fines. Your heroes are not going to see a single drop of the blood money you think they’re entitled to.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So, the joel guy was some phd student who pirated some music and claimed there to be speed limit in internet and while he knew his activity was illegal, he thinks its as serious as driving over the speed limit in public roads. But eventually lost his case.
This jammie was some single mother who pirated the material and lost in court and got significant damage award.
Yeah, legal system is kinda strange that when you win a legal case, you actually need to go to the infringer’s house and beg for your money, and then once that fails, you send hound dogs and mafia to collect the money.
we’ll see, we haven’t heard if they’re queuing food stamps somewhere in city or what happened to them after the legal wranglings.
Re: Re: Re:4
Unlike the fantasy world in which you reside (you really should seek serious professional medical help about your delusions), in this reality, someone breaking the law to collect a legal settlement is still breaking the law and will (or at least should) be prosecuted for doing so. I know you’d love to kill the rest of humanity with your bare hands so you never have to deal with other people ever again, but that’s no excuse for believing you can use violence to legally make someone who owes you even the smallest amount of money pay up.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
yes, why do you think I’m software developer? Gadgets are simply significantly more pleasant to work with than actual humans. It’s the Bill Gates style nerd riches that convinced my parents for this career, but I just hated humans. Happily there’s a conversion procedure which can convert a human to a robot, and then I can start debugging it like it were a tin can.
Re: Re: Re:6
please seek professional help, you dementia-addled sociopath
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
You’re not liking what it takes to get software properly done in time for your consumption? You should have asked that before making bill gates richer than god.
Re: Re: Re:8
No, I’m pointing out how you…
…makes you sound like a sociopath with the early signs of dementia or some other similar mental health issue.
Please seek professional medical help.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
It would be illegal to clone blender’s user interface. And blender’s interface is a mess with all the right-mouse-button-select horror which nothing else uses. Basically designing the user interface patterns yourself will get significantly better result than your insistance that I need to do copyright infringement and clone blender’s user interface patterns. The only reasonable way to design user interfaces nowadays is to extract the information how humans are actually using software products from the market itself. Cloning other people’s user interface research is simply illegal and very annoying for end users, when they can see from miles away that the right-button-select pattern was stupid from the get-go, and still these software vendors keep cloning the pattern.
You can actually recognize the vendors who are not doing their own research on user interfaces. Insisting that we clone someone elses stypidly designed user interface is very dangerous pattern, and you should try to start moving away from the illegal area.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Whether it can outperform these tools like blender depends obviously on what purpose you’re trying to use the tools. Blender’s web support is hilarious, when they can only publish videos or static jpg/png files on the web, when real 3d engines can run the whole engine inside browser process and do interactive manipulation of the scene on the fly via user input. But no, their render farms simply cannot output the required quality in interactive frame rates, instead they want everything to be precalculated to a huge video file and posted to youtube before you can share it with your friends.
GameApi builder’s window is not preventing video extraction by screen grabbing the builder window, but it’s just going to be clumsy development process, when there exists option to put the whole 3d engine to the browser process.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
When I have actually implemented more than one use case for my 3d engine, there is also more than one target group for audiences. Software development is simply not profitable activity at all, if you cannot reuse the software in different contexts like different use cases and different audiences.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Yes, my software is using techniques and practices which were not acceptable for the 150 million gadgets. I.e. I don’t use the same kind of widgets, instead only widgets which were actively rejected from the more popular product.
I.e. it is using niche areas which are not suitable for general use.
For example, builder uses a list of buttons that can be opened as user interface primitive, but that was rejected from more popular product because woocommerce uses that pattern to indicate that commercial/costly items are behind that menu. This kind of rejected user interface patterns are perfect for gameapi builder.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Teleporting is very famous pattern from star trek where they have to beam to different planets via a teleporter since their space ships don’t have visible doors.
This teleporting is so popular pattern that technology vendors that implement real technologies really had to implement that pattern. Their first implementations are using "3d printing" where downloadable items can be "teleported" via phone lines and the 3d printer manufactures plastic model that looks the same as at the other end of the phone line. I.e. it works like a teleporter.
Since gameapi builder is based on the same opengl 3d technology than 3d printers, our software is actually able to do those operations required for the 3d printer teleporter to work. Thus teleporting is one of the marketing terms that I use for marketing the product to people who have watched star trek and who are exploring 3d printing and 3d graphics in general.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
I never asked for money from the government. The required elements have always been:
1) they try builder tool
2) create mansion plans with the tool
3) there will be large number of mansion plans, similar to how minecraft levels are being built around the world
4) microsoft will buy it once government gets their act together
5) I will be as rich as bill gates with the practices borrowed from microsoft
6) bundling of the gameapi builder and meshpage to every sold copy of windows is a nice bonus for my popularity
Re: Re: Re:10
the fact that you did five separate comments to address one of mine is fucked up
please seek professional medical help for your obvious mental illness
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Notice that Tero Pulkinnen is demonstrating very similar traits to another copyright fanboy, out_of_the_blue? Multiple counts of consecutive shitposting, delusions of self-importance and grandeur, and the advocacy of violent means to reach their goals. I wonder how close Ol’ Pukeface here is to his January 6th threshold and Meshpage gets Alex Jones’ed off the Internet after he makes one too many organ harvesting threats.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Hasn’t stopped you from using an interface suspiciously identical to Unreal’s Kismet engine.
Contrary to what you think, not everyone has a deathly phobia of right clicks like you do.
This is a meaningless distinction when your pool of software testers is limited to yourself. Maybe you could have gathered together a bunch of users who are just as afraid of right-clicking as you and build a dedicated modeling tool for them, but… well, you’ve already admitted you hate other humans. You’d probably hate your parents given the chance. So it figures you wouldn’t glean anything useful.
The "stypidly designed user interface" is your opinion. If you disagree with how existing products work… that’s on you. Other users don’t share your perspective, nor is "cloning user interface research" a concern. People gravitate towards solutions that don’t require additional hoops to jump through. You’re arguing that you should be allowed to invent a car that you steer with your penis because you think driving with your hands is stupid, and you’re insisting that all hand-driven cars be declared illegal because nobody else wants your product.
This is not the damning indictment against Blender you want it to be. An animator who produces an animated movie is not going to be showing their friends the models and rigs and timelines on the backend. They’re going to be showing a final export.
So instead of having an actual export function your solution is to export the entirety of the builder and call that a game? This is not the efficient time-saver you’re desperately praying it is. The moment you start running into the assets required for what counts as a triple-A game – hell, even indie games these days can rack up high counts – no browser is going to be better at handling those requirements. Which you yourself have discovered based on the fact that you yourself admitted that your patching isn’t even finished at a basic level.
And yet you convinced your parents to let you dive headlong into this field?
And you haven’t racked up a single success story in any context.
The idea of people instantaneously traveling from one place to another is something that predates Star Trek. Never mind the fact that your understanding of what 3D printing is has consistently turned out to be proof that you have no idea how to use the English language. 3D printing is the equivalent of downloading a Microsoft Word file and outputting its data on a sheet of paper. You can try "3D printing" yourself through a wall with no doors, but I imagine you’d fail.
I thought you were supposed to work on your builders from scratch without relying on someone else’s technology?
Which you’ve already claimed to have stopped using in your marketing materials, so… I’m not sure why you continue tooting your own horn here to celebrate your nonexistent marketing genius.
Don’t lie, Tero. You’re extremely bad at it, and there’s plenty of quotes where you’ve openly declared that you intend on using the army and mafia to demand money from people if it came to it.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
This money wouldn’t be coming "from the government". Sueing pirates and getting damage awards from the idiots is not the same thing as getting the money from the government.
Re: Re: Re:12
you can’t sue people for piracy if they’re not pirating your shit
and by your own admission, they’re not
how the flying blue fuck are you so bad at this
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
you can still get them pay settlements.
Re: Re: Re:14
that still requires you to have standing to sue
you don’t
how are you so fucking bad at this
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
I’m obviously using RIAA’s legal position…
standing to sue can be obtained by submitting their ip addresses to the court.
Then doe defendants first get default judgement and then after deanonymizing them, just send settlement demand…
Re: Re: Re:16
you only get standing if someone pirates your shit
by your own admission, nobody is pirating your shit
you don’t get to sue people who haven’t wronged you, and you don’t get to demand they pay you if you can’t sue them
how are you so fucking bad at this
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
Well, I created so good copy-protection (== used web technologies) that nobody is able to pirate my shit… it’s better than denuvo and significantly more performant…
Re: Re: Re:18
if Denuvo can be cracked, someone can crack your shit to pirate it
but no one wants to pirate your shit
and no one is, by your own admission
which means no one is infringing your copyright, which means you have no standing to sue anyone, which means you can’t make anyone give you money by threatening to sue them
how are you so fucking bad at this
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
this isn’t true. The skills of the pirates are so poor that they cannot crack even a standard web page…
Re: Re: Re:20
three things
how the fucking hell are you so bad at every aspect of your life that isn’t the bare fucking minimum necessary to exist
Re: Re: Re:21 Re:
Yes, but browser vendors added security features which even the smartest pirates like you don’t even know the protection exists. They simply cannot crack protection that they don’t recognize as a copy-protection.
I don’t care. The protection needs to be so powerful that no pirate will bother to do it.
Yes. but you cannot know this because you didn’t try the actual software.
Re: Re: Re:22
I know nobody has bothered to try cracking your shit because you keep admitting that nobody is using it
that’s how I know your shit is useless
you keep owning yourself so hard
how are you so fucking bad at this
Re: Re: Re:23 Re:
So you get to be the first who gets access to bleeding edge technology?
So you’re always behind the technology development curve. Always starting learning the technology only when your competition has already spent years with the technology… Don’t you think you’re outdated from the start when you keep doing this? When you don’t take bleeding edge technologies into use until there’s significant proof that it’s going to rule the world?
Re: Re: Re:24
your shit isn’t "bleeding edge" if it isn’t offering something that people want or need from their tech – and meshpage offers nothing that even people who dick around part-time with Source Filmmaker can’t already do (and do better) with their favored programs
that’s why nobody’s using meshpage
that’s why nobody’s pirating meshpage
and that’s why you can’t threaten people with lawsuits and make them pay you to go away
lmao you are so awful that you make me look relatively adjusted and sane in comparison
Re: Re: Re:25 Re:
Bleeding edge just means that the build was done last week instead of 2 years ago.
Re: Re: Re:26
when you last compiled your shit is irrelevant
nobody is using your tech because nobody needs your tech – they’re all fine with the tech they’ve got, and yours offers nothing they neither need nor want
if they’re already using Blender, why the fuck would they out-of-the-blue switch to a program with fewer features, more restrictions on what they can do, worse output, and even less potential for customer service than what they’re already using that were all borne out of one sad cunt’s cult-like devotion to copyright
please seek professional help for your mental illnesses
and please fuck off
Re: Re: Re:27 Re:
These landline phones were all pretty good too, and noone needed a phone while travelling. Everyone can just sit idly at their phone table waiting for someone to call them. Then when you cannot find your way to the summer cottage, you need to travel back to home to use the phone and then the other side wasn’t waiting at their phone table and you’ll miss your phone call..
Basically the old tech always have some features which are not very good, and people "do not need any improvement", but when they get their act together the new technology is actually helping solve significant problems that wasn’t solved by the old tech.
Re: Re: Re:28
you’re once again assuming that your "bleeding edge" tech has a use case outside of your single-minded cult of copyright
meshpage offers nothing that other programs can’t do better – except the one thing nobody but you cares about, which is your "I have to please my copyright gods or they’ll kill me" anti-input measures
nobody will want to use an intentionally broken piece of software to do only a fraction of what they can already do with a fully functional application
christ you are so bad at everything
Re: Re: Re:29 Re:
our solution is all about quality and packaging. Fully functional application like blender is no use if the learning curve is too steep. Our technology is easier to use and that’ll win every time.
Re: Re: Re:30
please seek help for your dementia-driven delusions and possibly a bit of dissociative identity disorder
Re: Re: Re:31 Re:
I anyway need to outsource my identity management… too bad the login system is kaput due to browser’s iframe not supporting cross-origin frames any longer…
Re: Re: Re:32
please seek professional medical help for your obvious mental health issues
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
history of this feature is such that at the beginning, there was only possibility to take screenshots from the 3d engine and get audience critique the screens. But thats outdated pattern when emscripten allows running my c++ code on browser. Even my mom can now see how the software works when it is available as a web page that can be opened in any web browser. So the pool of software testers is not limited to me alone.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Yes, that would be ideal, but sadly the real world gets into way of that ideals. Basically opengl gives access to gpu hardware and emscripten gives access to running your c++ code inside web browsers. It’s just gaining access to already popular environments.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Once again you keep bobbing and weaving around the terms you’ve consistently demanded. Whether it’s the government sending you money for mansions, sending you money for mansion plans, or the government mobilizing armies and gangsters to help you get money, it boils down to the same thing in the end. You want the government to spend money, time, and resources because you think your vanity project demands the entire country’s attention.
The "pirates" claim is another hilarious bit. Stephen has already explained this to you in apoplectic depth, but in summary: you cannot claim money from people who have not pirated your work. In particular, work that you yourself claim is impossible to pirate. And yes, the RIAA did take an equivalent of that position. Which is why that initiative failed after sinking millions of dollars trying to chase favorable judgments from courts, and why they’ve stopped doing it, because it made them look terrible in the eyes of the public. But looking terrible seems to be your end goal here, so… business as usual.
If you want actual feedback on the outputs of your engine, tossing your software into the wild with limited tutorials and explanations isn’t an effective way to go about it. Maybe if you had some meaningful debugging team your claim might actually be semi-relevant, but you hate working with others, and you have all the instructive skill of a raging bull.
In other words, based on your own "stricter copyright standards", you pirated someone else’s work to gain access to their market share. LMAO. You’ll cheer on Oracle suing Google for their API but you’ll gladly steal the work someone else has done for your retirement fund. You copyright fans are such hypocritical scum it’s laughably easy to point out.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Well, your theory has one significant flaw. There are free licenses available for the technology I use. So it’s not pirated, and your stack of cards falls down like world trade center…
Technically your theory is possible, if I insisted on rejecting their copyright licenses. But I simply accepted their licenses.
There are other situations where I actually rejected a clear open-source license simply because I don’t need their software.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
Which you still did not create. Your point has always been that you do not have a right to use anything you did not personally create. The fact that you used a free license is not an excuse. In fact, the fact that you didn’t pay anything for it is by your own rules an admission of piracy, because you didn’t pay for something more expensive.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
This would be a worthwhile rebuttal assuming your software was actually "proper", "done", or suitable for "consumption". It’s not. The best you have is the 3dsmax equivalent of the Theranos machinery that claimed to provide accurate medical testing with a single drop of blood. As in, the company that failed so bad, its CEO is under trial right now for lying to investors.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I mean, I don’t disagree with this. I work in an environment where it’s common to use "competitive marketplace" and "client servicing" to justify acting like a backstabbing, brown-nosing asshole. But unlike you, I don’t believe that demanding my country’s government to suck my cock is a viable strategy.
I suppose that explains your obsession with brainwashing and the fear that I’m doing it to the RIAA. But sure, you do you. Personally I’m glad to see you continuing to list multiple delusions that turn people away from investing in your software.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Investing? You gotta be kidding us. Noone is going to invest their hard-earned cash to some property that isn’t available in the stock market. Most people are wary of even stock market and prefer interest-rate based investments. Noone is betting their future on some random software web site that hides among 2 billion other web sites. It simply doesn’t make sense whatsoever.
Re: Re: Re:8
jfc, you keep saying shit like "nobody is going to buy software" when that clearly isn’t the case
nobody is going to buy your software
you are so fucking bad at this lmao
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Well, current problem is that the software isn’t even available for purchase, given that we don’t have the software packaged to cardboard boxes or microsoft style license costly license paperwork.
Also since we’re independent, we don’t get shelf space from the shops that sell software to computer users.
See, the problem you’re referring to, i.e. that the software sucks, isn’t the only problem with selling the software.
Currently we’re offering it without compensation from our web site, but that activity doesn’t really contribute anything to the bottom line.
Re: Re: Re:10
wow, you admit your software sucks – that’s horribly hilarious
also please seek help for whatever mental illness is causing you to think you’re more than one person
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
It’s "we the people"…
Re: Re: Re:12
you are not a team
you are not a society
you are one person – one sad, pathetic, and likely mentally ill person
please seek professional medical help
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
I’m also not in international space station, so I can actually talk to people… our work is not done all alone in a cave.
I can still refer to founders of the constitution, even if you don’t like the rule of law.
The power to make things better for everyone lies in the combined effort of all these one-person teams.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
This would have been a point worth making if you hadn’t made it abundantly clear you hate other people.
You could, but it’d be meaningless in the context of Finnish law.
Technically true, if not for the fact that you hate combining your effort with others.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
The "others" couldn’t even get hello world done, so there’s nothing worthy available from the others.
You need to learn to trust the gadgets.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
I trust gadgets. Just not the ones from you.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
And yet you think some random fucknugget (i.e. me) looking at your software for ten seconds and calling it trash is a "win".
You’re right nobody is going to invest in your shit, whether it’s money, time or interest.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Well, the tech starts to be ready, if someone is interested. If not, then I’ll find someone else.
At least having tech ready is better than what you can claim. You simply didn’t bother to create copyrighted works at all.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
What you have is not "tech ready". In your previous sentence you claimed that the tech "starts to be ready". Which means it’s not ready.
My field is actually in copywriting and design, so unfortunately for you, I do dabble in fields that depend on copyright. And even then I don’t delight in going after disabled children for blood money the way you do.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You learned to use Google search, good for you. The arguments used by Tenenbaum’s defense team were widely agreed by the legal community to be pretty fucking atrocious. Thomas-Rasset’s case, though, was dogged by her case being the first ever copyright lawsuit that went all the way to trial, and the RIAA convinced jurors that she needed to be fined much more than was necessary. Years afterwards, the jurors admitted that they’d made a mistake, especially considering cases such as Prenda Law in mind.
This applies regardless of person, status, income, or wealth. Here’s a tip: if you want to actually claim money from someone, it helps to be realistic. Asking for a stupidly large amount of money doesn’t give you a large payoff. Not only does it allow your victims to claim bankruptcy and protection by the court system, it convinces judges that copyright holders are greedy and future damages should be limited.
If you wanted to hire a PI to hunt them down, you could. It doesn’t change the fact that the RIAA got nothing out of their legal ventures.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Opinions
At the end of the day, unless your child has been trafficked on back page, your opinion is only that – an opinion , a thought, and irrelevant to the trial or the issue at hand. You haven’t lived it and can’t imagine how it feels – adults who choose to have sex for money are not the problem. The problem is the minor children who were sold on this site and the fact that the traffickers were assisted in selling these kids for their own profit by contacting the person who placed the add and giving them other wording that would allow the add to get placed. You see there was a program set up to catch phrases such as “young girl” anything that referred to a minor child and to not post it on the site. The posters would be contacted and given other words to use that would slid past the program and thus get posted successfully.
They were fully aware what they were doing and what was happening.
Lives are shattered – families struggle to regain some type of normalcy, knowing that life will never be “normal” again.
I could go on and on but I don’t want to – the trolls will say I was a bad mother, blah blah blah – I’ve heard it all – although as a single full time working mother who also was attending college full time to support my family, after the divorce- no child support, no other options but to maybe live off the state but not trying to be a bad example to my kids by sponging off others and instead working to be an example that being a statistic isn’t the way we would live our lives , I couldn’t run around after my 14 year old daughter everywhere because I was trying to make a living. An while I was doing that, she met people who exploited her. I put the men in jail – 16, 15, and 13 years is their sentences – now my daughter is 21 – damaged – I’m damaged- my sons are damaged – it hurts – every day it fucking hurts – I want everyone to pay that played a part in adding to the destruction of my family.
Understand or don’t understand it doesn’t matter
Re: Opinions
Your opinion is still just an opinion, as well. (Truthfully, no one would know if the facts you state are true, of if this is a created story intended to bend peoples’ emotions, but i would accept it as a good-faith account.)
The problem is the minor children who were sold on this site and the fact that the traffickers were assisted in selling these kids for their own profit by contacting the person who placed the add and giving them other wording that would allow the add to get placed.
That is still a problem, indeed, if true. That’s been a long-time claim, with no evidence to back it up, and against whom does it apply?
she met people who exploited her.
Which is definitely a problem, and not one addressed by taking down websites or creating laws that weren’t necessary to even take down those sites, let alone catch actual traffickers. That would have been addressed by the Feds and cops listening to complaints and doing something.
I put the men in jail
Good! Under what laws were they prosecuted?
Re: Opinions
"You see there was a program set up to catch phrases such as “young girl” anything that referred to a minor child and to not post it on the site. The posters would be contacted and given other words to use that would slid past the program and thus get posted successfully. "
bullshit
Re: Opinions
You haven’t lived it and can’t imagine how it feels – adults who choose to have sex for money are not the problem. The problem is the minor children who were sold on this site
You are correct. I have not lived it and I cannot imagine how it feels. But I am pretty confident that I would want those actually responsible — those who engaged in the sex trafficking to be the ones who are punished for it. And I’d be concerned — as we have seen — when the focus is NOT on them, but rather on the tools that they used.
I’d also be concerned — as the US government has reported — about how after Backpage was taken down, it became much more difficult to track down and find sex traffickers, because it all migrated to overseas sites who don’t cooperate — unlike Backpage who did.
So, again, the complaint should be with the sex traffickers. The situation here, where we blame the tool makers literally makes the problem worse, and means that families who are now going through the unimaginable pain and suffering that your family went through are LESS LIKELY to get out of it.
Re: Opinions
In other words, the site was trying to prevent illegal sex trafficking.
For such a heinous offense, they should be punished. From your narrative, I conclude that it would be pointless to seek the actual traffickers, whose business the site rejected.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
All for Show
Phony trial on a phony law that was bogus from the git. It’s remarkable how simple prostitution got relabeled sex trafficking. It all depended on Puritan American culture. It shuts people up. My best wishes to the victims of this show trial.
Re: All for Show
Which your team champions, no?
And
Jealousy.
And
Brothers keeper.
We all knew what was going on. We suggested the outcome. I think even the cops TOLD them what would happen.
Those persons in office have nothing else to do, except Look busy and Mess everything up.
Get the best business etiquette courses online :
https://socialqonline.com
Have a good day!
[—-]
Have a good day!
[—-]
Have a good day!
[—-]
Have a good day!
[—-]