Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Thaldor

Member
  • Content Count

    510
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About Thaldor

  • Title
    Member
  • Birthday 1989-07-21

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Finland
  • Occupation
    Freelance Game Designer/Tester

System

  • CPU
    AMD Ryzen 7 1700 @3.8Ghz
  • Motherboard
    Gigabyte GA-AX370 Gaming K5
  • RAM
    4x8GB G.Skill FORTIS DDR4 2400Mhz
  • GPU
    Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1070 Windforce OC 8GB
  • Case
    Nanoxia Deep Silence 3
  • Storage
    3x 1TB HDD + Samsung 850 EVO 500GB + 4TB Toshiba X300
  • PSU
    Corsair AX860i
  • Display(s)
    Samsung S24E390 + LG 22EA53 + HTC Vive
  • Cooling
    Noctua NH-D15
  • Keyboard
    Logitech G19
  • Mouse
    Logitech G700
  • Sound
    Creative Sound Blaster Z
  • Operating System
    Windows 10 64-bit. Pro

Recent Profile Visitors

848 profile views
  1. It probably couldn't be even tested enough to give it the IP00, so it would fall into IPXX rating which means "no enough data to specify a protection rating".
  2. 2000 folds with robot, not even with the magnet snapping... Not going to last normal use without silk gloves. That is one hell of a fail-phone. Biggest flaw clearly is that protective layer which is part of the screen but doesn't cover whole screen so it looks really much like a normal pre-attached film protector. Like did they save 5 cents (probably a lot less) in materials when not having the top layer of the screen covering the whole screen? Or is it just designed to fail within couple of months if you don't carry it around on velvet pillow and handle it with silk gloves (which both are sold separately by App... Samsung)? If other foldable phones have these same issues and no one has yet overcome them, I predict foldable phones will have a lot harder and longer way to become common things than VR headsets when Oculus released DK1 with all of it's faults and problems.
  3. If it would take noticeably more force to remove than normal pre-applied film, it would set some warning lights within those who try to peel it off and often peel those protectors off. Also it must start to peel off quite the same. With that this might really be a huge problem especially with time and use. I can see how that layer starts to separate from the top and bottom of that hinge probably in months but for sure within couple of years and if not then then it breaks right after the warranty is over.
  4. But the true question is: If it seems like it can be peeled off like a protective film, how long it will last in use? It doesn't take a lot movement from that grease to slowly stress and work out the film and when it lifts off even little it will start to get pulled by everything and stuff gets under it and very soon it's bye bye 2000$ phone and I guess warranties don't cover "expectted wear and tear".
  5. Thaldor

    UKs Porn Pass law has just passed, will go into affect in July

    It was passed a long time ago (first time it popped up was in 2007/2008 when UK marketed it for EU and was laughed off, because idiots). It was firstly timed to come into effect somewhere around 2018, but didn't and was delayed to 2019. Then it was supposed to become into effect 1st of April 2019 and didn't. Now it's just another date that comes and goes and probbaly nothing happens, just like with brexit. UK really is one little island which is all talk but when it comes to acting, nothing happens.
  6. https://ritastatusreport.live/2019/04/15/wargaming-sloppy-dmca-takedowns-against-3d-tank-modellers/ Apparently WG has already withdrawn their claim and all of the models should be back but they will continue to track down and DMCA models that actually infringe their IPs like models directly ripped off from the game, models using images from the game and models infringing their trademarks (which all can be found from Thingiverse right now). Someone apparently wanted to make their job a lot easier and send way too broad takedown notice.
  7. I suspect their legal team went haywire once again. Wouldn't be the first and won't be the last, WG is known to be very loosely hacked up company that has a lot of problems when it comes to making guidelines and informing different branches. Like around 2 years ago they went way too far with one youtuber filing DMCA takedown notice and people started a real poopstorm from it, didn't take long when the WG EU office made press release about it and everything kind of calmed down, until about hour later WG NA made press release which was complete opposite (IIRC they said that the DMCA takedown was necessity to remove toxicity and was surprising that they didn't talk about suing people) of WG EUs release and the whole poopstorm continued, took couple of days for them to release global anouncement to get the poopstorm to stop and people can just guess how many people got fired for not handling the matter the right way (like banning people from their forums, not giving clear answers, not contacting the other branches about things, mismanagement).
  8. Quick Googling around you are not talking about Warhol but Roy Lichtenstein who's whole career is build onto (in todays terms) ripping off comics. Most articles going into his copyright problems just point out that he was more or less using the loopholes in the earlier US copyrightlaws where the comicbook artist didn't really have rights for their work but the publisher had but that mainly covered comicbooks and whole strips, not single images. At the point where Lichtenstein was sued he (his representative) could also easily afford more expensive court cases than the comicbook publishers and artists suing him which means basicle he went and said: "You can continue this but I will win, not because I'm right, but because you will run out of money way before my attourney runs out of ideas prolonging the case". Lichtenstein also used less known comics as his sources probably for this reason (also less selling comics because bigger publishers like DC wouldn't run a lenghty court case for something that didn't sell well), he was very well informed if he was going to to make a painting out of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck or Superman, he would be marched over in the courtroom and probably that would have caused he to loose his livelyhood just because then there would have been court case lost by him. Today you use the same source material as Lichtenstein used and you get sued by Lichtensteins estate for infringing his copyrights because copyright laws have come a long way. What the hell do you smoke? Yes they do, except if something in their game is 100% 1:1 scale and no artistic freedoms taken historical/real-world thing, and they very much have claims for them. It's a dick move to enforce those rights, but by the law they have all the rights to sue people for using their intellectual property without consent. The thing here is that did the thingiverse artists really ripoff WoT (as in get caught for not noticing changes WG has made to the historical tanks as in different lenght gun barrel, adding tools and spare tracks around the tank, sometimes even making a tank out of their heads (like T28, T28 prototype and T28 concept); this is pretty much normal procedure in game development, with it even get around some legal problems or just make the things more appealing in the game) or did they just use the same source material and WG is clearly stepping over their boundaries. Edit: Lichtenstein actually was never sued over copyrights.
  9. Not valid point. A) Warhol didn't make photorealistic paintings and so they were visually very different B) Warhol was actually sued for one of his Flower paintings which was done from another photographers photo and that was settled outside of the courtroom with Warhol paying the photographer and crediting (giving royalties) her. Appropiation artists usually make paintings which are clearly in different style than the original photo and visually distinguishable, Warhol was sued apparently couple of times both times ending with sttlement outside of the courtroom and apparently quite often these cases end with that. Warhols Campbell's soup cans were never tried and remain in the grey area wether or not they are CR infringements and probably that is because Campbell gained a lot of good and free notoriety from Warhols paintings and Campbell even giving real soup can labels to Warhol to use as invitations for his exhibits. In 2012 Campbell released special edition soup cans to commemorate Warhol with labels colored as Warhols paintings and bearing Warhols signature, I couldn't find were there any kind of paperwork with them but them hitting the markets I think Warhols estate approved with it. So even if there wasn't direct sues or even claims from Campbell to Warhol, there was dialogue between them and both were satisfied by the outcomes without any official legal paperwork or even public dialogue about copyrights/trademarks.
  10. The topology doesn't matter. For copyright infringement a visual indenticality is enough, it doesn't matter how you attained it. Like if there was a bronze sculpture somewhere and you were to make identical 3D print out of it and claim it's yours, you would be commiting copyright infringement. If we move to this case there would be a old bronze sculpture from which someone else had made a 3D model and added a tophat on it and you were to make a 3D printable version out of that 3D model with the tophat and all, even if the original bronze sculpture would be in public domain you would still commit copyright infringement. Also it doesn't matter if you were to make that sculpture out of clay instead of 3D printing it, you would still commit copyright infringement. No matter how much work and what materials you used to make a copy out of someone elses work, you are still commiting copyright infringement if that work isn't in public domain or you have permission. Even if that other persons work was based on something that is in public domain, if that person has altered the original for their work (changed proportions, added details, generally made something that differenciates their work from the original) and you were to copy their work with their changes to the original, you are commiting copyright infringement because that other persons work isn't in public domain even if the original is.
  11. It's irrelevant if there's one or two people with the same power, but if that power is single handedly deciding that some legistation will never be heard in congress because that person has the power to not schedule it and if by some miracle it gets there, that same person can suddenly choose to vote about it without any prior notice when that person sees that the supporters of that bill are absent. That is quite fucked up power to someone have in "democracy". Apparently USA isn't the perfect democracy as seen in the past now that the president has powers to walk over everything as Trumpeteer has shown and when there's two persons in high ups who can stop any legistation from moving forward just because they feel like it. Like, yes president of Finland can stop legistation from going through by not signing it which will return the legistation to the Finnish Parliament for discussions and for a new vote, but if that legistation is voted by the parliament and comes to the desk of the president without any (or with only very minor) changes, the president can no longer decline signing and must pass the legistation.
  12. What you describe is still considered only format change which is not covered under transformative. If you take a digital photo out of painting of bottle and try to claim that you have right to publish that photo out to public as yours because it's transformative art from the original painting, you get fucked in the court faster than you can say "objection" because you haven't created transformative art, you have just digitalized the painting even if it would have included color correction and other use of editing. Only thing that would change that would be if WG was using only 100% blueprint dimensions and wouldn't add anything of their own design to it. As I used the E-25 model as an example where we go legally very dark gray area of ripping off because those additional stuff outside of the tank are quite definetly added by the artist(s) (some historical concept art might have tools in them, but usually they are very rough outlines of the tank and no one would use so much time as drawing tools and spare parts on the tank when the main thing is to draw the tank to show the design and at least I haven't seen any historical (claimed) drawings of the E-25 with tools, spare tracks, towcable and other stuff hanging around it) and with that we could start argue has WG ripped off TigerAce1945 or vice versa because both have added almost identically stuff to the E-25.
  13. None, he just had few meetings in restaurants with his re-election campaing supporters. What you are saying would be corruption, learn the difference. (/s)
  14. Offtopic in spoilers. This is quite hard case. Taking a look at the Thingiverse what they still have up and it's very hard to say have they ripped off from WoT or not. Like the E-25 from TigerAce1945s E Series collection (the 5th image) and comparing it to WoTs model from tanks.gg and the main differences are the roadwheels and spare tracks in the right side of the tank. If the removed models are that close (or even closer) it's almost impossible to say wether or not they are ripped off. Modeling a tank from blueprints or from images results usually quite same looking tanks, but when even the extra things (spare parts, tools and other accessories outside of the tank) are almost identical, it goes fast to the county of maybe. Either way if they haven't ripped off WoT they should challenge that DMCA, otherwise they got what they deserve.
  15. Article says what article says. There's already taxation reasons why Steam can have different pricing in different countries (last year EU stated that ecommerence platforms must pay taxes to and by the coutries of their customers, not many care about that because it's highly unenforced because the monitoring and acting is pushed to the countries tax officials). The press release itself just talks about "activation codes" and in case of Bandai Namco, Focus Home, Koch Media and ZeniMax contractual export restrictions in their agreements with a number of distributors other than Valve (which a lot seems like they were limiting the countries where boxed games could be bought or having geoblocked keys in boxes to limit the key reselling). Either way more or less this falls into the hands of publishers and developers and how greedy they are. The games are actually a lot cheaper in far bigger markets than the richer EU countries and it doesn't even matter because people can just buy the games a lot cheaper by buying them from other services. If they were to remove store areas and put the same price to everywhere and that would be the sixth highest price in the world, I can see how G2A, Kinguin and others rub their hands together because they still can provide keys outside of the EU with a lot cheaper prices and their userbase will grow.
×