@TheSaneInsanity Some people who think they are ethical about this seems to forget the fact that copying without permission was never itself a violation of basic human rights thus it does in fact matter how its used in the after fact.
Even under Copyright and respect for its purpose, it literally allowed some cases of copying without permission for certain purposes including transformative fair use (possibly used in law to allow new creative lawful works without interfering with the value of the copyrighted work).
Yet the moment AI comes up, some fake ethical claims goes against it all together the moment its used without permission even if the use it morally equal to fair use thus, fallacy and likely two faced.
Also I think it's unethical to go after an artist who made a harmless 100% human made work just because they got an idea from an ethical source like modern AI at one point. We can separate the two, especially millions of creative works exists partly due to imperfect parts of culture.
@BBBBBBBBBBB
Im sorry but this is massively delusional and completely hypocritical.
The reality first is that copying itself was never theft and that even under Copyright, it always mattered how certain works were used without permission. Knowing this, I would argue if a new fair use transformative and harmless work based off a tool of "stolen works" exists, it doesnt make any sense to claim somehow its poisoned, especially since it was never a human right to monopoly information, let alone forever.
Even if something did originated from something harmful at one point (and hey, maybe this particular use did harm environment?), that doesnt mean the after fact becomes somehow forever "unethical". Many good things we have was helped form due to some bad things from the past. Its completely made up reteric nonsense to suggest otherwise. Like damn... also I would argue its unethical to decide that its somehow okay to go after a human artist for making real harmless work just because they had an idea that came from modern ai or some other bad thing at one point. That disagrees with their rights thus unethical. Same with the hypothical theory I'm assuming here involving Level 5.
Also note too, many artists before ai has stolen lots of stuff as a way to form ideas coming from someone who learbed culture involving everything is a remix series back then.
Edited:
Actually now reading it more, I guess you were just criticizing the effort of how they were getting the ideas and not mattering if its original in the end. So like suggesting its best to avoid using the modern tool in the first place in order to achieve the result. I was assuming you were trying to go after the after fact in certain cases just because of where it came from. If so then my bad on that part. I still stand with the depends how it's used part knowing the whole culture history and copyright purpose though.
@michellelynn0976 Err I guess it's not letting you post it. lol
I dont know if there is a dm feature here or not but do you remember the article title, or where (like twitter, Instagram) vgc maybe said it? So far the only thing is an article where it was announced for Switch 2.
@michellelynn0976
Ah sorry I think I meant that I was asking if you remembered where VGC said it? Wasn't trying ask if there was other sources outside.
Though if you dont remember where you saw it from this one, then oh well. lol
It really disturb me to see some people still defend Nintendo possibly doing this just because it's "their IP". It's sad that the concept of Copyright law has been misused to the point of making some people think it's a human right when it's not and never even was intended to be.
Copyright is too long, and I don't see any harm with many of the gmod Mario asset existing in it alone. Just because Nintendo can take certain stuff down, doesn't mean it's automatically morally correct nor does it mean people can't lawfully call it out. I wouldn't be surprised if some people defended Nintendo going after inncoent fan art or even go after a carving of a normal picture of Mario on a good grave stone just because "they are just protecting their "intellectual property" .
I hope many popular people lawfully call Nintendo out on this if Nintendo was responsible.
Please note that I don't want to name names here because I don't want this comment to be seen as some kind of fighting. I'm mainly just want to spread my take.
I hope I don't sound offensive, I feel like that if a game is meant to feel like an expansion of the original or like ones of those 'ROM hack' where the adventure and story is new and good, then I would say the developer did a good job with that and the art style is what got me interested into this game. If the game is meant to feel like a spiritual sequel and it's lawful then I would argue doing that is not a con on itself. Though I would be curious about any new good ideas.
Also I feel like the ROM hack comment suggests that a ROM hack isn't ever possible to be creative which I don't agree with.
Of course I am not expecting this review to change because I said this, but wanted to add some thought.
I honestly think the "rule" is stupid and makes the reputation worse. Imagine limiting such freedom to appeal to a bunch of normies who think it's wrong for two different species to like each other. It honestly is worse to have it because I would rather have the franchise have such freedom than limit it in favor of the type of people who hates something that isn't really bad. Know what I mean? I'm not even a fan of sonic but it does bother me to see something that now probably feels a bit more political for the worse if you know what I mean.
My comment will probably not be found much, but this kinda article seems to be similar to trying to gatekeep a community nobody really owns and probably is such a thing. While I don't agree with the abusive behavior that has happened, I don't think it's fair to act as if the bad choices has anything to do with Super Smash Bros. unless it somehow had something to do with it, and I don't think it's still Nintendo's fault unless described by law.
Nintendo still didn't have to do that, unless the law requires to.
I also want to point out about how one tries to handle it could be very debatable and political at times. For example, I don't have an issue with someone who didn't get traditionally punished if the person has already changed for the good and yet some people want to do that anyway.
If we try to "gatekeep" it, this could lead to harassment of many several individuals for the wrong, especially those that did abusive behavior but is wanting to come back as a good person.
Remember, playing Super Smash Bros. is not that different than enjoying pizza. If someone in the "pizza fandom" did something so horrible like killed someone, what's this have to do with pizza? Granted, some abusive behavior might of happened during a location involving that game, but still?
Comments 10
Re: Preview: Splatoon Raiders Promises The Single-Player Splatting I Always Wanted
This might be a weird question but is it possible to unequip both gadgets from the L and R triggers?
Re: "We Will Continue To Pay Close Attention" - Level-5 Issues A Warning Against Piracy
@TheSaneInsanity Some people who think they are ethical about this seems to forget the fact that copying without permission was never itself a violation of basic human rights thus it does in fact matter how its used in the after fact.
Even under Copyright and respect for its purpose, it literally allowed some cases of copying without permission for certain purposes including transformative fair use (possibly used in law to allow new creative lawful works without interfering with the value of the copyrighted work).
Yet the moment AI comes up, some fake ethical claims goes against it all together the moment its used without permission even if the use it morally equal to fair use thus, fallacy and likely two faced.
Also I think it's unethical to go after an artist who made a harmless 100% human made work just because they got an idea from an ethical source like modern AI at one point. We can separate the two, especially millions of creative works exists partly due to imperfect parts of culture.
Re: "We Will Continue To Pay Close Attention" - Level-5 Issues A Warning Against Piracy
@BBBBBBBBBBB
Im sorry but this is massively delusional and completely hypocritical.
The reality first is that copying itself was never theft and that even under Copyright, it always mattered how certain works were used without permission. Knowing this, I would argue if a new fair use transformative and harmless work based off a tool of "stolen works" exists, it doesnt make any sense to claim somehow its poisoned, especially since it was never a human right to monopoly information, let alone forever.
Even if something did originated from something harmful at one point (and hey, maybe this particular use did harm environment?), that doesnt mean the after fact becomes somehow forever "unethical". Many good things we have was helped form due to some bad things from the past. Its completely made up reteric nonsense to suggest otherwise. Like damn... also I would argue its unethical to decide that its somehow okay to go after a human artist for making real harmless work just because they had an idea that came from modern ai or some other bad thing at one point. That disagrees with their rights thus unethical. Same with the hypothical theory I'm assuming here involving Level 5.
Also note too, many artists before ai has stolen lots of stuff as a way to form ideas coming from someone who learbed culture involving everything is a remix series back then.
Edited:
Actually now reading it more, I guess you were just criticizing the effort of how they were getting the ideas and not mattering if its original in the end. So like suggesting its best to avoid using the modern tool in the first place in order to achieve the result. I was assuming you were trying to go after the after fact in certain cases just because of where it came from. If so then my bad on that part. I still stand with the depends how it's used part knowing the whole culture history and copyright purpose though.
Re: Review: Kena: Bridge Of Spirits (Switch 2) - Old-School Platformer Offers Sumptuous Visuals & Heaps Of Charm
@michellelynn0976 Err I guess it's not letting you post it. lol
I dont know if there is a dm feature here or not but do you remember the article title, or where (like twitter, Instagram) vgc maybe said it? So far the only thing is an article where it was announced for Switch 2.
Re: Review: Kena: Bridge Of Spirits (Switch 2) - Old-School Platformer Offers Sumptuous Visuals & Heaps Of Charm
@michellelynn0976
Ah sorry I think I meant that I was asking if you remembered where VGC said it? Wasn't trying ask if there was other sources outside.
Though if you dont remember where you saw it from this one, then oh well. lol
Re: Review: Kena: Bridge Of Spirits (Switch 2) - Old-School Platformer Offers Sumptuous Visuals & Heaps Of Charm
@michellelynn0976
Do you have more of a source? I have having trouble finding anything online about "vgc" (video game chronicles?) confirming that.
Re: Garry's Mod Is Removing "All Nintendo Related Stuff From Steam Workshop"
It really disturb me to see some people still defend Nintendo possibly doing this just because it's "their IP". It's sad that the concept of Copyright law has been misused to the point of making some people think it's a human right when it's not and never even was intended to be.
Copyright is too long, and I don't see any harm with many of the gmod Mario asset existing in it alone. Just because Nintendo can take certain stuff down, doesn't mean it's automatically morally correct nor does it mean people can't lawfully call it out. I wouldn't be surprised if some people defended Nintendo going after inncoent fan art or even go after a carving of a normal picture of Mario on a good grave stone just because "they are just protecting their "intellectual property" .
I hope many popular people lawfully call Nintendo out on this if Nintendo was responsible.
Please note that I don't want to name names here because I don't want this comment to be seen as some kind of fighting. I'm mainly just want to spread my take.
Re: Review: Airoheart - Adequate Adventuring For Link To The Past Obsessives
I hope I don't sound offensive, I feel like that if a game is meant to feel like an expansion of the original or like ones of those 'ROM hack' where the adventure and story is new and good, then I would say the developer did a good job with that and the art style is what got me interested into this game. If the game is meant to feel like a spiritual sequel and it's lawful then I would argue doing that is not a con on itself. Though I would be curious about any new good ideas.
Also I feel like the ROM hack comment suggests that a ROM hack isn't ever possible to be creative which I don't agree with.
Of course I am not expecting this review to change because I said this, but wanted to add some thought.
Re: Random: Don't Expect To See Sonic Kissing Anymore Humans, Says Sega
I honestly think the "rule" is stupid and makes the reputation worse. Imagine limiting such freedom to appeal to a bunch of normies who think it's wrong for two different species to like each other. It honestly is worse to have it because I would rather have the franchise have such freedom than limit it in favor of the type of people who hates something that isn't really bad. Know what I mean? I'm not even a fan of sonic but it does bother me to see something that now probably feels a bit more political for the worse if you know what I mean.
Re: Soapbox: If The Smash Community Wants To #SaveSmash, It Needs To Start From Within
My comment will probably not be found much, but this kinda article seems to be similar to trying to gatekeep a community nobody really owns and probably is such a thing. While I don't agree with the abusive behavior that has happened, I don't think it's fair to act as if the bad choices has anything to do with Super Smash Bros. unless it somehow had something to do with it, and I don't think it's still Nintendo's fault unless described by law.
Nintendo still didn't have to do that, unless the law requires to.
I also want to point out about how one tries to handle it could be very debatable and political at times. For example, I don't have an issue with someone who didn't get traditionally punished if the person has already changed for the good and yet some people want to do that anyway.
If we try to "gatekeep" it, this could lead to harassment of many several individuals for the wrong, especially those that did abusive behavior but is wanting to come back as a good person.
Remember, playing Super Smash Bros. is not that different than enjoying pizza. If someone in the "pizza fandom" did something so horrible like killed someone, what's this have to do with pizza? Granted, some abusive behavior might of happened during a location involving that game, but still?