This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ๐ Aria ๐ฎ
Pages: 1 ... 125126127 128129 ... 352
3781
« on: May 11, 2016, 01:14:30 AM »
I'll cut you off: I still haven't finished anything that I promised to finish months ago.
3782
« on: May 11, 2016, 01:06:32 AM »
A reminder to select grass type in every pokemon to make your playthrough a living hell
grass is as useless as a wet sponge
Disagree. Grass in Gen 1/3 make early game a breeze.
3783
« on: May 11, 2016, 01:04:23 AM »
1. Bulbasaur
2. Cyndaquil
3. Treecko
4. Piplup
6. Fennekin
I'll probably go with Rowlit or Litten.
3784
« on: May 10, 2016, 03:32:45 PM »
It's just my forearm. I could probably go for a few hundred easily. Let me drink beforehand and I'll take the whole million.
You'd do it even if you couldn't drink beforehand, you buttslut.
Maybe if it was a white person doing the papercutting. I don't just let anyone have at me for fun.
ftfy
3785
« on: May 10, 2016, 03:29:23 PM »
It's just my forearm. I could probably go for a few hundred easily. Let me drink beforehand and I'll take the whole million.
You'd do it even if you couldn't drink beforehand, you buttslut.
3786
« on: May 10, 2016, 12:42:17 AM »
Change if being you hurts you enough to be someone else. You can't just pretend to be someone else, you must change yourself for it to work.
One of the hardest things you can do, I think, but it would be worth the payout.
3787
« on: May 09, 2016, 04:32:42 PM »
Milan to see Il Duomo, or I'd choose to go to Germany and see the Freiburg Cathedral while I'm there.
Gothic architecture is the best.
3788
« on: May 09, 2016, 02:53:36 PM »
I like it because it's a breath of fresh air in the current environment (especially on consoles), but I can't say that I care that much about playing it.
3789
« on: May 09, 2016, 02:50:29 PM »
I know like who made the abbreviation for pounds lbs. it makes no sense!
lbs is short for libras, the Roman measurement equal to 12oz. That's where we got it from.
3790
« on: May 08, 2016, 10:38:19 PM »
Overwatch searches on Pornhub jumped 817% on May 5
I have no words
Someone's been using N4G.
it's not like this was posted on Reddit and like every other game site
Reddit is for shills.
says the fag on septagon
Says the one with Marty - on sep...
what the fuck is a Marty
"Elite Four Invincible!"
how is that a marty
Maybe I'm mistaken, but you get a custom Rank when you reach Marty, which is what you have.
No, he won a tournament a while back. He doesn't have half the post count to reach Marty.
3791
« on: May 08, 2016, 10:36:42 PM »
I'm half-hoping his approval rate goes up after these shenanigans, would be hilarious.
3792
« on: May 08, 2016, 10:19:30 PM »
I don't quite think that'll make North Carolina reverse its decision. It hurts those who might already disapprove of the bill, and the state government won't call to reverse the decision over a kind of pornography no longer being available (through only one website).
I don't know, it just comes off as a little petty.
This is just one of many, though. There are several other corporations/celebrities boycotting NC now.
I just don't think any government employee wants to be known as the guy that repealed a law because some porn was banned. Just think that this specific boycott hurts the cause more than it helps.
3793
« on: May 08, 2016, 08:23:20 PM »
Losing a lot of souls sucks, but at the same time I find it liberating. You don't have anything holding you back if you don't have anything to lose anymore.
3794
« on: May 08, 2016, 07:53:34 PM »
I'd steal an armored truck.
3795
« on: May 08, 2016, 06:50:56 PM »
1/3 if the flips are independent,
1/2 if the flips are dependent.
3796
« on: May 08, 2016, 06:42:45 PM »
Why would the government try to hunt down botnets? All tracks just lead to Microsoft and Windows 10.
Malicious actors may even be able to hijack the malware the government uses to infiltrate botnets You forgot Google.
3797
« on: May 08, 2016, 06:38:54 PM »
It's YouTube. They do this all the time because they have no official terms of service. They need to sort that out, because it's unfair to so many people. Both hated, loved, and small time starting out.
It'll be back up soon.
It already is.
3798
« on: May 08, 2016, 06:38:01 PM »
I don't quite think that'll make North Carolina reverse its decision. It hurts those who might already disapprove of the bill, and the state government won't call to reverse the decision over a kind of pornography no longer being available (through only one website).
I don't know, it just comes off as a little petty.
3799
« on: May 08, 2016, 05:44:27 PM »
maybe you should just stop hating women
stop being haterphobic it's triggering me
3800
« on: May 08, 2016, 05:40:50 PM »
But in raising plagiarism, I do have to ask: is accidental plagiarism not a plausible argument? I can't say whether or not she didn't intentionally create the misconception that she herself recorded the video clips, but not citing the source is a form of plagiarism. If it isn't, in this instance, could you explain why so?
Plagiarism is the theft of someone's ideas or style -- copyright infringement is the theft of their content. If she stole someone's clips (by claiming them as her own or exceeding fair use criteria), that'd be copyright infringement. If she stole someone's published arguments about feminism in video games, or their style of video or mannerisms, etc, and it wasn't in a satirical capacity, that'd be plagiarism.
So if she had (knowingly, and defining that can be a whole other can of worms) used an argument made by someone else in a video, then that's plagiarism.
Visual plagiarism is a thing now too; though, to be fair, it mostly applies to artwork like paintings or photography. Where's this coming from exactly? There's having several heated disagreements with people and then there's being a passive aggressive prick about it. I expect this kind of snarky behaviour from Verb, not you.
I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to, but I don't think it was snarky or passive aggressive. I bluntly told him that he was wrong and didn't know what he was talking about in regards to citation and fair use. Sorry? I had to respond to what seemed like a dozen identical posts riddled with the same misconceptions.
To anyone that was offended by my bluntness: just get over it, I guess. You know that I don't mean anything personally or insultingly and I would never lose respect for someone for participating in any side of a discussion.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to Death. Nevermind.
3801
« on: May 08, 2016, 05:34:49 PM »
Yeah, that was wrong of me. For one, Turkey's already provided that LPers have basically no right to fair use; honestly, if FROM wished to, I doubt that there's anything you could do to prevent a takedown. The persistence of Let's Play channels rely on the copyright owners either granting sponsorship or not choosing invoke their rights as the copyright holder. exactly
except for one thing--commentaries, as far as i know, are indeed protected, and that's what my videos are
i don't show a substantial amount of content in my videos, and i certainly don't profit from the videos
so i beg to differ with turkey one that one, but in terms of from's right to take my videos down, it's arguable that they'd be within their right, and i wouldn't really have much to say about it
Even if it isn't the case that there is absolutely zero legal reason for why she should cite the source of her video, no matter how obscure it be, I still hold that she morally ought to credit the source. It takes a few minutes, at most, to rig layer simple lines of text to display over the first few seconds of the clips. There's no reason why not to, and being a nice person is the most obvious reason to do so.
3802
« on: May 08, 2016, 05:26:40 PM »
It only mentions that if a work isn't transformative, isn't reasonable or customary, or is in bad faith, denial of credit (not lack thereof) may factor into the first facet of fair use. I've already provided a fair use walkthrough for this example.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html If you posted this link earlier in the thread, I'm afraid that I didn't see it. My bad. -snip Plagiarism/Copyright divide- Alright, I concede that it would pass fair use if only because any detraction left is minuscule enough to pose no difference. But in raising plagiarism, I do have to ask: is accidental plagiarism not a plausible argument? I can't say whether or not she didn't intentionally create the misconception that she herself recorded the video clips, but not citing the source is a form of plagiarism. If it isn't, in this instance, could you explain why so?
3803
« on: May 08, 2016, 05:17:18 PM »
why? what would be the point?
i have no qualms whatsoever with doing so, but why exactly should i be obliged to
if i stated somewhere in the videos that i was playing a game that i made, then we'd have a problem Yeah, that was wrong of me. For one, Turkey's already provided that LPers have basically no right to fair use; honestly, if FROM wished to, I doubt that there's anything you could do to prevent a takedown. The persistence of Let's Play channels rely on the copyright owners either granting sponsorship or not choosing invoke their rights as the copyright holder. you can be obliged in a legal sense to do things that you shouldn't do in a moral sense, but w/e
Let me clarify: I do hold that she should be legally obliged to credit the source, but I personally hold that she should morally do so as well.
3804
« on: May 08, 2016, 05:06:57 PM »
Whether the copyright owner's work is factual or creative is irrelevant; it's the use that matters. Determining fair use involves meeting the criteria for fair use. Failing this or that, no matter how small, is an argument against. This isn't a single yes or no question like you're implying; meeting fair use means sufficiently meeting the four factors, meaning meeting the larger side of concepts under them. For a similar example, refer to how arguing self defense works in law. Permission isn't necessary for fair use I didn't say it was necessary, I'm saying that attempting to gain permission helps your argument for fair use. Again, fair use isn't just a yes/no question. You have to meet the factors and the concepts they represent. Who cares? It doesn't matter. If you can obtain what is required through less alternative sources which will allow it (and being able to obtain it reasonably, meaning she wouldn't have to scrap for weeks to obtain a single 15 second clip), then fair use can be further put into question. It's not alternative; it's incorrect. She doesn't require permission or a citation. That's clearly why we're having this discussion right now, we disagree. I just don't see why calling me wrong supports you in any way. I never did; I said you're wrong. Maybe you've put hours of effort into learning about this -- you're still wrong, and I encouraged you to learn more.
I mean specifically the way you said it. Call it semantic, but there are clearly less insulting ways to get your point across that telling me that I don't know anything about this. I've read your source, and very little differs from what I'm saying at all. The only difference between my source and yours is the bit about citation. Have you read my source? I specifically made sure that it was from either a government or education source so that I could be sure of the information's authenticity.
3805
« on: May 08, 2016, 04:54:00 PM »
I would like to see those people banned as well. Nobody should get away with breaking rules. "i want youtube to be devoid of content"
unless you like shane dawson videos, i guess
Verbatim, please work with me here. Literally the only thing that I'm arguing is that she should acknowledge who she got her footage from if it isn't her own.
or else she gets banned. so it's not a matter of "should" to you, it's a matter of obligation
when i upload dark souls footage on my channel, should i be obliged to post the entire credits sequence in the description? is that going to save me from the copyright fairy?
or is it not going to make a lick of difference, because fair use is fair use
Should you disclose that FROMsoftware is the owner of the property in some way, whether it be in the description or the video? Yeah. Should/ought to implies obligation, among other things. I don't see the point in meandering in those words.
3806
« on: May 08, 2016, 04:49:18 PM »
Irrelevant Considering that Copyright isn't a black-and-white area, any bite for or against is relevant. No, he doesn't cite anybody at any time. You mean except for that title of the video? Her work is factual, not creative. Turkey, the copyright owner. Not her. Sure there is; she has no obligation to do so. If it is reasonable to do so, one should seek to gain permission to use a work first. No, she isn't, especially in the tiny clips she uses. So why even use a LPer's footage? Why not just use trailer footage from the publisher itself if the actions taken within aren't important to context? If alternative footage is available for use, then that's not in her favor. Nope Please read the link I provided. I do too, because then people like you wouldn't be completely wrong about it on here. Having an alternative view on a complicated legal subject with many facets and factors (yes, beyond the four umbrella factors) means that I'm wrong? Come on now Turkey, this is not as clear-cut as you're making it out to be. Those actions literally, legally, have absolutely zero bearing on fair use. Please read the link I provided. Sorry, you just don't know what you're talking about at all. This is the only thing that irks me. I'm okay with possibly being wrong, but don't tell me that I haven't put any effort into researching this subject. Patent law is one of the areas that interests me, and one of the potential specializations I'll go into when I get into a law program. I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong when you've sufficiently answered my issues, but please refrain from targeting me directly. It won't get this discussion anywhere.
3807
« on: May 08, 2016, 04:37:00 PM »
I would like to see those people banned as well. Nobody should get away with breaking rules. "i want youtube to be devoid of content"
unless you like shane dawson videos, i guess
Verbatim, please work with me here. Literally the only thing that I'm arguing is that she should acknowledge who she got her footage from if it isn't her own.
3808
« on: May 08, 2016, 04:33:25 PM »
So basically many of you believe in unfettered free speech so long as you don't disagree with what the person is saying. When they say something you find disagreeable, then it's bring out the loopholes and point of view statements.
There are hundreds if not thousands of YouTube channels that game play footage on them. Many copy footage from other channels. They aren't being banned. Fair use is fair use. So long as they don't try to profit from it or claim it as original, then it's usable. She did neither.
I would like to see those people banned as well. Nobody should get away with breaking rules.
I don't disagree with her general sentiments at all, just a few examples that she cites to support them (mostly because of them being taken out of context, IE Hitman).
Except it's not breaking any rules. It's the EXACT same thing as writing a paper. You CITE a source backing up your thesis. Don't pass it off as original content. You also can't take someone else's work and sell it as your own. She cited the work and she didn't try to sell it.
So this is all a moot topic
My contention is that the source (the LPer) isn't being cited. I don't even think the ban should have been permanent. She was banned for a day, right? First offense (as far as I know), so a slap on the wrist is all that's needed. That doesn't mean I think she should continue on in the exact same manner; all I'm saying is that she should pair the youtube channels name at the beginning of the footage like WatchMojo, Machinima, or any other that uses clips from other channels.
3809
« on: May 08, 2016, 04:28:31 PM »
One of myriad examples: Music Video Sins. He uploads videos that he presumably took directly from YouTube, and without comment of the channel that originally uploaded it, uses it in a satirical, fair use role. The only channel he could have taken it from (which wouldn't have been illegally hosting it in the first place) is Taylor's Swift's Vevo account, aka person who owns the work. So yes, he has in fact credited the copyright owner. Without delving into the depths of fair use law, I can assure you that of the four major principles that decide whether something is eligible for use, "giving credit" isn't one of them.
https://www.teachingcopyright.org/handout/fair-use-faq
(read below)
Whether a use is fair will depend on the specific facts of the use. Note that attribution has little to do with fair use; unlike plagiarism, copyright infringement (or non-infringement) doesn't depend on whether you give credit to the source from which you copied. Fair use is decided by courts on a case-by-case basis after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright Act. http://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-useOther factors that sometimes weigh in the analysis of the first fair use factor include whether the use in question is a reasonable and customary practice and whether the putative fair user has acted in bad faith or denied credit to the author of the copyrighted work. She has not given credit to the author of the video. Doesn't disbar her, but doesn't help. Under the second factor, nature of the work: Is the copyrighted material factual in nature or creative? (More fair use latitude is accorded to factual works.) Doesn't mean creative works (i.e. music, LPs, movies, etc) can't be used under fair use, but it's not as likely to qualify. Under the third factor, Amount Copied: Is the portion copied the โheartโ of the work? (Even a quantitatively small portion of a work may weigh against fair use if it is the most important or commercially valuable part of it.) The heart of a Let's Play is viewing that person's playing of a game. By using someone else's let's play, she is taking the heart of the work. This doesn't disqualify her from fair use, but it doesn't help her either. Under the fourth factor, Effect on the Market: Is it difficult or perhaps impossible to locate the copyright holder or are there other significant obstacles to seeking permission? Is the expense of seeking permission greater than the value of the permission sought? (Where there is no cost-effective way to obtain permission, that fact will weigh in favor of a finding of fair use, which can be seen in part as a means for remedying market failure.) There is no reason for her to not seek permission in the first place. To be clear, fair use is a last resort protection, not your first intention. If it is reasonable to do so, one should seek to gain permission to use a work first. According to those that have claimed she used their LPs, this was something they discovered after-the-fact, meaning she never contacted them to attempt to gain permission. Other factors: Is this the first time this instructor has photocopied this excerpt for course use, or has photocopying of the same material been repeated from term to term without permission? (Repeated use without permission will tend to weigh against fair use.) Fair use is, again, the last resort and not the first. Repeatedly using a work without permission makes it harder for fair use to be granted. I really do wish that copyright was more clear-cut as a concept; for this specific case, and for many cases, it can be argued either way whether something can 100% be claimed as fair use. But doing things, such as crediting the source and attempting to get permission first, do very much help the case (neither of which she did.) Let's Play videos are typically not protected by fair play because they're not transformative, they're for-profit, and they use a substantial amount of licensed content. Your example is terrible, especially considering how controversial Nintendo's treatment of Let's Play content is. Tell that to Jim Sterling, who doesn't enable advertisements on his videos (last I checked). His Star Fox Zero video was subject to take-down despite limiting the excerpts from the game to trailer footage (no other channels besides Nintendo itself) and trimming the times. Also to note, it wasn't a Let's Play but a review (meaning he should, in theory, be awarded fair use). Nintendo's treatment has been controversial, yes, but has been entirely unimpeded. It's a perfectly fine example.
3810
« on: May 08, 2016, 03:50:23 PM »
So basically many of you believe in unfettered free speech so long as you don't disagree with what the person is saying. When they say something you find disagreeable, then it's bring out the loopholes and point of view statements.
There are hundreds if not thousands of YouTube channels that game play footage on them. Many copy footage from other channels. They aren't being banned. Fair use is fair use. So long as they don't try to profit from it or claim it as original, then it's usable. She did neither.
I would like to see those people banned as well. Nobody should get away with breaking rules. I don't disagree with her general sentiments at all, just a few examples that she cites to support them (mostly because of them being taken out of context, IE Hitman).
Pages: 1 ... 125126127 128129 ... 352
|
Show Posts