naraku360

Yeah, eyeballs that cost Fox nearly a billion dollars.

Cool, good to know. They dropped the announcement out of nowhere last week. Super weird.

You know, sorce, this is really disappointing. I assumed you were operating with some kind of argument in mind because I was working under the assumption that you're an intelligent person. You've repeatedly made it clear you do not have interest in treating others with the same dignity. It's classic egotism. You don't care about art as a concept. You care about people being blindly convinced your farts don't stink. You don't really believe what you're saying or you'd be able to defend it. This is a clearcut case of sorce doesn't want to be wrong and is too full over herself to own up to it.

I don't think Tucker is confused about much. He's a terrible person, but not necessarily a dumb one. Not to mention we've had Trump and Biden, so not really the first perpetually confused one.

I hope his wife divorces him and takes all his money with her. None of this will happen. I'm just being spiteful.

@Ric Hey, I wanted apologize if I came off douchey with my XC2 takes. In retrospect I don’t think I put my words together very well and probably came off harsher than I meant to. It's mostly a weird personal thing that's muddied by complicated feelings on it, but I do hope I didn't make you feel bad for liking the game. I thought it would be an appropriate time to give that apology considering the DLC story expansion lands tomorrow. Speaking of which....

I'm sure he isn't, just wish the end result of this would change that. Not a hopeful nor realistic wish, but nonetheless I do want Carlson to suffer.

Ideally he'd end up blowing all his wealth on booze and bitching about how unlivable his welfare checks are, but he'll undoubtedly be busy crying to audiences of several million people on Newsmax about how his free speech was censored instead.

So you're going to ignore the valid questions? I see at least 2 images MB didn't create! Art theft! It's acceptable because it's transformative. How. Is. This. Different? Should we get rid of Fair Use because you're offended that the art is too shitty? Answer the question, sorce. What's different about it? It's okay for him to literally profit off other people's work but memes aren't okay. It's okay for people to make fan art of copyrighted works to sell, but watch out for the horrible memes! Fucking absurd. You won't even acknowledge the question. As for the disability thing, I have no idea what you're trying to say. I'm saying it's an art form that can help people, like myself, with severe disabilities.

When TV became a thing, did it replace authors? Did books replace spoken stories/plays? Do artists get "replaced" just because a new method of creation emerged? How much thought is required for art? Is there a metric? Is asking you questions to further understand your argument "being obtuse?" Or is that just what you think anyone who disagrees with you is doing? Again, this is a standard you would not place on any other medium. Is the Mother's Basement video that was posted in this thread which CLEARLY SHOWS ART HE DID NOT CREATE also "stealing art?" Why not? Perhaps the reason I'm defending it is because I would like to make art but I don't have good eyesight and have a busted back. Perhaps this is a means by which I can create what I want without destroying my body. Would it make me less of an artist purely because I don't make already difficult limitations worse?

That's not plagiarism, nor theft. If the image is being altered substantially, that would fall under Fair Use. If we are to maintain this stance, one would also have to oppose all use of copyrighted material in, for example, a Youtube video. For plagiarism or "art theft" to occur, you have to be claiming an unaltered original as your work. What prevents a Youtuber from being legally liable is the use of material in a transformative way. Whether or not Youtube adheres to that is another story. If this is acceptable, for what reason might a mixture of images - quite literally altering the work - be less so? Ironically, selling fanart is actually a real violation of copyright law.

This would make me leave Twitter if I were Stephen King.

I found the execution of '99 to be more in line with the tone and pace that was intended. There's a very uneven feel to 2011 in the story arcs you would've seen. It's more a problem of how the material was adapted than the content itself, since 2011 feels both rushed and slow for a big chunk of the early stuff. They actually left out some really important things in 2011, like the entire first chapter which is really important for getting Gon's character. 2011 is technically a more 'accurate' adaption but it takes more than accuracy to properly convey a scene well. From a critical standpoint, just about everything is done better in '99. Take this scene - it's one you also saw in 2011 which I'll drop in for comparison: You saw this: Neither is filler, but which is better is obvious. 2011 has less directorial creativity and the content suffers for it. The power system is basically kept secret to anybody that doesn't stumble on it. Which is kinda fair considering the world of HxH is a nightmare and would be one of the worst realities to be born into. The characters are pretty similar in terms of personality but it's much better in execution. There is more 'filler' and most of it is abnormally good filler, to the point that without someone pointing it out almost all of it is virtually indistinguishable. I don't think that makes a show inherently good or bad. There are some very memorable female characters later on. I'm down for the Macross Saga. It's pretty standalone I'm guessing?

I like to call them the SCROTUS

Unfortunately, you may be overestimating the intellect of an average Fox viewer.

I do want to see that but not necessarily at the expense of bankrupting a company out of spite. I'd be far less disappointed if it had gone to trial, but we don't really know much of what the reasons were.

So, you want people to not enjoy and share their art when it's the wrong kind of art? What makes it "shitty"? Headpats from whom? What "useful part" of humanity does this "kill off"? Does this not have "useful parts"?

Define "art theft." Is fan art "art theft"? At what point does something become theft rather than an inspiration or reference? If the argument is that using someone else's art to create your own is theft, does that mean all fan projects that use existing IPs should also be considered violations of fair use?

Okay, but did Xenoblade X have to call me out, too?

I don't know what Dominion has to benefit from settling. It seems really bizarre when they have such a strong case. Unless the only reason was to avoid getting bled out by Fox's massive empire, but even then if you did what they did to me, I would've waited until after the trial started to make any agreements since Fox should be exposed for just how malicious they are. Though, I'm also tripping and I imagine Fox's negotiations end pre-trial. They are slimy enough to do it. So my post was probably kinda dumb.

And no lessons were learned.

Depends on what celebrity.

I don't think their issue is that the establishment is in love with Trump. It's that they brainwashed their base into worshipping the dumb pile of stupid. They tied themselves to him like he was the second coming of Reagan.