tp’s Techdirt Profile

terop

About tp




tp’s Comments comment rss

  • May 20th, 2021 @ 5:47am

    Re:

    with no guarantee that the payments will be given to the appropriate parties?

    If the middleman is not able to collect the money and pass it to appropriate parties, then it's responsibility of YOU to find the original author of the material and pass the money to them. Copyright law requires this pattern, by requiring that the copyrighted material is not copied without permission to do so. When you used your text editor and the author of the editor application is not ready to collect the money, it is your responsibility to find a way to pass the money to the original author.

    Sometimes doing this operation is more burdensome than you're willing to spend for it. But then you're not allowed to use the piece of text at all. The usage of the text piece outside of the area where proper licensing has been arranged, is forbidden by the copyright laws.

  • May 20th, 2021 @ 2:09am

    Re:

    How would that application be “more robust” if its core functionality — word processing — was stripped out because said functionality could allow someone to violate copyright?

    Well, if pirates are the only people using your word processor, maybe the design of the application was broken. Every feature has "advantages" and "disadvantages". Word processor have advantages that "you can edit text files", and disadvantages "copy-paste allows taking someone else's work without paying for it".... Then word processor developers just need to provide easy way to attach money to the copy-pasted text, and build a system to pass along those money amounts to the actual authors of the material.

    But would you trust the money to a middleman? If text editor requires every copy-paste operation to move money around, would you trust the middleman to actually pay the author, or is it going to endless chest of the middleman?

  • May 20th, 2021 @ 1:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Any task or project becomes much more efficient divided between an increased pool of volunteers.

    Efficient? You gotta be kidding us. When you increase the team size, the efficiency drops dramatically... Efficiency == (work actually finished) / ((time spent on getting the result) * (number of people involved))...

    I.e. when number of people grows, the efficiency drops dramatically. Unless you can get multipliers to the "work actually finished", then the efficiency of large teams is significantly worse than efficiency of small teams or single person teams.

  • May 20th, 2021 @ 1:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Complaints about copyright checks are due to the impossibility of meeting RIAA standards.

    You don't really understand any of this. RIAA standards are funny deal, since RIAA MUST FULLFILL THOSE STANDARDS THEMSELVES in order to require other people to follow the same standards.

    It may be that it is FOR YOU impossible to fullfill RIAA standards. But the requirements generally are not impossible to fullfill, and to prove that, you just need to look at RIAA's own copyright status.

    RIAA has large organisation and getting the whole org to follow some onerous rules is significantly bigger problem than getting ONE PERSON to follow those same rules. So when RIAA gets their own requirements implemented themselves, what they gain while doing that operation is a permission to require other people to follow those same rules.

    This is what you pirates do not understand. The authors who are requiring other people to follow some sloppy standards, have been following significantly stricter standards for long time before getting permission to impose those standards to everyone else.

  • May 19th, 2021 @ 5:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    yet you go out of your way to remove publishing options for users like you mentioned above

    The value is not coming from "what you add" to the product. The value comes from "what you remove"...

    If you remove ways to break copyright with the product, the product will be more robust as a result.

  • May 19th, 2021 @ 5:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wikipedia is hardly the first or only organization, product or entity that makes use of work that isn't directly paid for, champ.

    If they did this for 1 or 2 people, it would be just ok. But doing that for thousands of people and millions of work hours makes it ridiculous waste of people's time. It's the scale of the operation that makes it illegal.

  • May 19th, 2021 @ 5:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The problem lies in the fact that none of this is actually revolutionary or noteworthy.

    Well, to you it seems to be revolutionary, given that you have argued strongly that any copyright checking is impossible to do. Now that I've proven that the checking is possible and it actually helps with the actual copyright problem, you claim that it wasn't revolutionary after all. Why all the complaints that the checking is impossible?

    As far as I know, my checks are not hurting the actually useful features of the library/related technologies one bit, but still solves significant copyright problems. So all this complaints that all copyright checks are impossible to do was just bullshit.

  • May 19th, 2021 @ 4:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Other people have plenty of experience, skill, and resources to get 3d models to a webpage, without your intervention.

    Why is it then so difficult to mention which solution you'd use if you wanted 3d models to a web page? It would help me compare my solution to the "established" and other available competitors, if you'd actually provide the information which solution works for that purpose.

  • May 19th, 2021 @ 3:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    sounds like you're offering a lot of products, doesn't it? Doesn't that make your activity illegal?

    I made it for myself instead of using someone elses time.

    Why should wikipedia get the content if other people did all the work? The illegal part is happening when there's slaves working for you for aggregate of millions of hours, but no salaries whatsoever have been paid to the contributors. If the usa had proper unions actively looking for misuses of the legal frameworks, then they would find this kind of problems and forbid the practices which are not according to established laws.

  • May 19th, 2021 @ 3:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You stated clearly that you considered Wikipedia to be illegal because their "catalog" was too big.

    Yes, when their catalog is large, they had huge community creating the material. The whole community is waiting for their minimum wage.

    Advantages and disadvantages have nothing to do with it.

    Advantage=wikipedia gets lots of content
    disadvantage=wikipedia contributors are not getting salary

  • May 19th, 2021 @ 2:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    tell everyone how your "publish button", your "animation teleportation" tech preemptively prevents this copyright infringement.

    Well, I moved the publish button to a page which is slightly more difficult to find from the web site. Ordinary children or even teenagers are not able to find the button. When they cannot find the button, they cannot make the mistake of accidentally doing copyright infringement with the button.

    It also has additional safeguards. For example the file format required by the button for the actual content items need to be created with the builder tool. Nothing else in the world can create that file format. So this ensures that user have created the node graph himself, instead of cloning someone elses work.

    Then the web site uses a thing called "domain check" for ensuring that only content from allowed domains are being published to the site.

    If someone manages to go through all these steps and accidentally still do copyright infringement with the technology, then there is manual review of all the published content and the content can be removed if DMCA notices or other hints about illegal content is being detected.

    As you can see, there's multiple levels of protection against accidents.

  • May 19th, 2021 @ 2:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    But unfortunately for you, Wikipedia's illegality is nothing more than the fevered wet dream from your wretched imagination.

    Think of for example litium-ion batteries. They're everywhere, even though they are known to explode when short-circuited. So it doesn't survive the gold fish test. But manufacturer's of the products have decided that advantages of that technology are greater than the disadvantages. But if their safety electronics which protects the battery from explosions are somehow bypassed or malfunctions, then burns and explosions can really happen with litium-ion batteries. And I don't even need to remind that a fire in an airplane is not very good thing.

    Every technology has some issues like this. Wikipedia included. The developers have just decided to go with the advantages and minimizing the disadvantages. All technologies can be sued when their product choices are not surviving the test of whatever people in real world manage to throw at the product.

  • May 19th, 2021 @ 1:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Funny thing about copyright enforcement: they don't wait for people to break the law. Everything about them is preemptive, Minority Report style law enforcement.

    You as a product manufacturer can safely assume that the users are idiots, criminals, trying to find ways to burn neighbour's house with your product, are trying to test if the product survives lightning strikes, are harrassing a goldfish with your gadgets or that the product needs to survive ran over by a roller, or pirate groups are trying to use your products for distribution of hollywood movies..

    These kind of assumptions are perfectly valid when designing products for the end users. This really needs to be done preemptive manner, so that the product is already safe to use by users when end users opens the box for the first time. It wouldn't be acceptable if 4 year old children who got our software for xmas present would accidentally commit copyright infringement with the product simply for not understanding that the "publish" button can only be pressed when you actually have permission to publish the material. The publish button design must not allow copyright infringement use cases. This is especially important when designing products for children or teenagers, who still haven't mastered the fine art of copyright checking and effort calculation.

  • May 19th, 2021 @ 12:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You still didn't mention what is your alternative solution to getting 3d models to a web page...

  • May 19th, 2021 @ 12:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    are you seriously attempting to claim that your stuff is easier to use because you're the only one using it?

    Yes, I working alone can get 170 animations done, but average blender user cannot get a 3d model to the screen yet... clearly easier to use.

  • May 18th, 2021 @ 8:37am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If I have to do something extra just to make it look like I've done more work, how is that "easier"?

    Blender has whole community helping them create the stuff. I'm just one person. This means that my stuff easier to use by factor 1/N, where N is blender's community size.

  • May 18th, 2021 @ 6:00am

    Re:

    The modelling/rendering output of Meshpage is inherently inferior to what can be done in Blender.

    The quality of the modelling and rendering in both blender and meshpage are related to the quality of the datasets that you're going to render. If the dataset sucks, then will also your rendering. Basically the "automatic" conversions from one data structure to another cannot increase the dataset quality. It can only decrease the quality. Thus the only way to get hígh-quality datasets is via importing external data or via input devices such as mouse/tablet etc. And generally it takes significant amount of work to get high quality datasets.

    My claim is that builder tool is easier to use than blender and thus easier to get high-quality datasets.

  • May 17th, 2021 @ 11:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Nobody's going to waste time on a tech offering that even the creator himself admits is mediocre.

    You still haven't shown what is your alternative solution to getting 3d models to a web page...

  • May 17th, 2021 @ 11:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And what illegal alternative am I proposing?

    Large content collections, like youtube's and wikipedia's content collections. They're all illegal since they forgot to pay minimum wage for the authors.

    Basically when the number of offered products is too large, the activity becomes illegal. Different web sites are falling to different traps, but generally they all forget to pay salaries to the authors. Instead they think they end users are simultaniously users of the material and creators of the material. That approach was declared illegal some time ago.

  • May 17th, 2021 @ 10:42pm

    Re:

    When a possible alternative produces output that is inferior to a program they already use

    This just isn't true. The meshpage's output is better because it can be made available in the web. All the other tech that deals with 3d stuff needs to be converted to other formats before pushing it to web pages. So there's significant improvement in quality of the end result when the number of conversions required is smaller.

More comments from tp >>

.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it