Open Source = Copyright Infringement

FOSS community consists of zero-talent people, excelling at imitation and stealing.

https://github.com/saniv/free-game-art/blob/master/foss-copyright-infringement-records.md

NIKIKE

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

This will not be the first board you've been banned from for starting trouble. A quick google search shows the issues you caused in /prog/. Do you want to be a contributor to this community, or a source of arguments?

However there is a rub: a main contributor to that game hates feminists, and is pro-marry-girl-children, and often cites Deuteronomy 22 28-29 in the original hebrew. People have deleted this contributors work before for that, and try to cencor the project because he is a contributor. Many in opensource feel that opensource ends where their belief in women's rights and opposition to old ideas such as men marrying girl children, begins: progressive pro-women, anti-male-supremacist (man is ba'al, _Master_, of the woman in the old testament, supremacist) politics are more important than libre software.

>>1
What's great is that he's the only person complaining about this copyright infringement. The people who own the copyright don't know, or they don't care. And if they do care, who's really going to say it's not just their lawyers who care?

So instead of alerting the copyright owners, he bitches about it on Github. Instead of making his own content, he bitches about other people's content. He has no legal standing to to pursue the matters anyway.

Open source community, being socialist-minded, is known to react dismissively at cases of copyright infringement.

He hasn't provided any evidence that socialism and acting dismissively to cases of copyright infringement are linked. He starts with the bullshit right off the bat.

The licenses on the allegedly infringed pieces of work do not respect my freedoms, and as such I will not respect that license. If they care so much, they can sue me.

>>5
Reported for islamophobia.

>>6

He hasn't provided any evidence that socialism and acting dismissively to cases of copyright infringement are linked. He starts with the bullshit right off the bat.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Expropriation+of+the+Expropriators

>>8
The Soviet Union never implemented socialism. Further, certain uses of copyright can be used to protect the worker against exploitation of his labour, for example the GNU GPL.

As such, it is clear that socialists would not, at least necessarily, dismiss cases of copyright infringement.

Besides, to brand something as "socialist" or "not socialist" would almost certainly mean referencing Marxism, in which case any argument on copyright in socialism has no weight, as Marx as far as I know never wrote about copyright.

The author has still expounded bullshit; he says that due to the allegedly socialist nature of this cohesive and whole group he calls the "open source community" (which has has provided no evidence for its existence) this means that the members of the community act dismissively.

Maybe I'm a member of that community - and I'm certainly not dismissive of copyright infringement. It just depends what copyright is being infringed.

>>9

The Soviet Union never implemented socialism.

http://imgur.com/1PE2eLs

>>10
I have the same for capitalism.

>>9

argument on copyright in socialism has no weight, as Marx as far as I know never wrote about copyright.

From the investor's perspective, there is little difference between stealing from shop and stealing from intellectual space. The capitalist loses profits in both cases, because some useless nigger thinks he can just take it without respecting property rights.

>>9

I'm certainly not dismissive of copyright infringement. It just depends what copyright is being infringed.

Whose copyright, you mean.

Says the guy who three years ago was bragging to the faces of Deviantart users that you were stealing their shit.

>>11
sweet dubs

>>15
check my square

>>16
check my prime

>>14
Oh shit, I forgot that episode, you owe me a new pair of sides.

>>14
Why would anyone be stealing shitty art from deviantart, when there are a lot of no-shitty art on sites like www.spriters-resource.com?

>>14
I don't remember that.

Open Source = Copyright Infringement

stop misusing the assignment operator to mean equality

>>21
Since when is equality sign an "assignment operator"? It never was, you stupid imperative ape, and I have dubs to prove it.

>>13
No, that's not what I meant. I meant the conditions of the copyright, as in if it is full copyright, or only some rights reserved, for example the principles of the GPL or BSD license.

>>12

The capitalist loses profits in both cases

Citation needed.

I'm dismissive of copyright infringement, especially when copyright lasts as long as it does in the US.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-basics/

For works published after 1977, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years.

Life of the author is already ridiculous enough, but what logical reason is there for it to extend after h(is)|(er) death? It's just so companies like Disney can milk as much money as possible, which I find ironic because lots of Disney's early films are based on public domain works.

>>24
In a perfect world, copyright would have unlimited lifespan, giving infinite value to the works human brain.

If you want to freely copy Disney's flims, then purchase rights to do so. Or even better, create a superior product. What stops you?

>>25
What if Disney, all of his hairs and their hairs etc die and their corporation is closed? Whom am I going to buy it from?

>>23

No, that's not what I meant. I meant the conditions of the copyright, as in if it is full copyright, or only some rights reserved, for example the principles of the GPL or BSD license.

No, from >>9 it's pretty clear that you meant that it depends on whose interests some particular form of copyright is supposed to protect. After all that's what Marxism is about: drawing lines dividing the humanity into classes and protecting interests of some of them.

Even if you try to separate "good" copyright from "bad" copyright based on which rights are reserved, as a Marxist you must treat that as merely a proxy for, and ground it in, which classes' interests it protects. Because, among other things, if you try to treat those protected rights as first-class objects then you're sliding into the Libertarian heresy.

>>25

In a perfect world [...] What stops you?

That we don't live in a perfect world, duuuuh?

>>26

hairs

Nostrovia, Ivan!

>>26
From a wig-maker, obviously.

>>26
What if shop owner dies? Who will sue me for stealing from his shop?

>>28-29
I mean heir, heir!

>>30
Is it stealing then? Who owns it?

>>31

Who owns it?

Russians. They have annexed it.

>>32
You mean, reunited with it.

>>31

Is it stealing then? Who owns it?

If your only problem with copyright is that it might be unclear to determine the owner if the original owner and their hair died, but which is trivially resolved by saying that in such a case it goes into pubic domain as usual, then uh, lass, maybe don't present that as an end all, be all argument against copyright?

>>34
Okay-okay! We get it, Abobo! Copyrights are racist, because an upright black men, like yourself, want it for free.

Teh lulz! Legit buyers are being robbed by Google!
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/30/871207
"If you ever post your projects on Youtube for advertising income, be aware that The Hollywood Edge is now digitally fingerprinting their sound effects. What does this mean?
Digital Fingerprinting is a way of identifying your content, for instance, if you upload images or music that doesn't belong to you, various companies can identify that music or image and claim the advertising income away from you. And if you are lifting music or images, this is a way that the legitimate owner can find and claim that which was taken from them.
It has gotten out of control. This is the latest chapter. I found 2 of my videos were being claimed on behalf of Hollywood Edge by AdRev because I used a sound effect! A sound effect which I thought I had the use of when I bought the library package back in 1999. After all, that is why you buy a sound effects library right? Well I guess if you buy the Hollywood Edge sound effects library, it is so they can claim the rights of your work in the digital environment. This is important even if you don't post your work on Youtube for income because this is how the digital rights environment is going to operate in the future. Any new suggestions for a sound effects library I can use in the future without them taking my income?
"

>>36
That's fucking hilarious.

>>36
Obviously the correct approach in the Land of the Free is to sue the shit out of the copyright trolls. And I'm not being facetious here: the dude should take them to the small claims court or watsname, it allows for claims below $5000.

Also, contact the EFF, but they might not be receptive to being used in a petite bourgeois vs medium-sized bourgeois fight.

Also, maybe contact an actual copyright lawyer, who might work pro bono at least as far examining his case goes. Because selling someone the rights to stuff, then harming their business reeks of punitive damages far exceeding the actual damages.

Take a page from the Dolan Trump's book ("The Art of the Deal") -- don't fight the system, use it. Contrary to what various 14yo or mentally retarded anarchists believe, the system is supposed to do good for the humankind, and it learns from you using it for good.

>>38
You forgot that YouTube is Google's domain, so Google can enforce any rules it wants there. I'm sure Google's Terms of Service include clause about giving Google the rights to your work. And Google doesn't want to fight with Sound Ideas for little gain.

OpenLiero - a linux Worms clone (linux people cant create anything original), steals assets from a shitload of games, from Castlevania to Naruto to Warhamer 40k:
https://github.com/albertz/openlierox/tree/0.59/share/gamedir