>>613
>The concept of "fair use" already exists in copyright law.
"Fair Use" only exists in America and England. And even then, it's a huge legal grey area because no one ever actually fights on the matter for the purposes of setting a precident. In addition, there's reasons for
both sides of the argument for why you wouldn't want to make fanworks. Assuming that fanworks are not protected by "Fair Use", you're effectively giving the rights holder content that they can have free of charge. So like Nintendo could release AM2R and charge money for it because it
IS their game though they never commissioned nor created it.
In fact, Bungie recently did exactly that when they used Destiny fan art for an upcoming expansion of Destiny 2, without ever asking for permission or providing compensation to the original artist. However assuming that your fanworks
DO exist as "Fair Use", what you're doing is basically offering "free advertising" for the rights holder. And with that being the case, given how much people in this thread express their hatred for KC's prudishness, do you really want to spend your time advertising MGE instead of something else?
>They don't. Because it's unofficial art.
That doesn't matter.
>It's like arguing you can't criticize something because it could cost that thing money
You do know that's exactly what "slander" is all about as a legal definition, right? In fact, President Cheetoh-Man recently won several court battles over that exact thing.
>Fanart does not force anything upon the official source.
Yes, it does because fanworks can take upon a life of their own and dictate the direction of a series. Need look no further than how Brutal Doom effected how the latest Doom games approached their gameplay.
>Quality is irrelevant
I wasn't discussing quality, I was discussing application.
>Them disliking it isn't an issue. They're having it forcibly taken down.
And that's their right because of it being MGE related content.
And will continue to remain that way until someone fights it.
>The point is MGE dickgirls are hot.
For you and me, maybe. Not for KC, who opinion is the only one that matters since he is the owner of MGE.
>Small time artists shouldn't have to legally dispute whether every instance of fanart is "fair use"
First, they don't need to do it "every" time, it only needs to happen
ONCE to set a precident. Second, do you
WANT to continue being abused or will you put your foot down, say enough, and finally give these people the ass whooping they deserve for abusing the system in a manner that it was never designed for?
>It's like saying only Disney has the right to use Grimm's Fairy Tales
They have the right to use
THEIR version of Grimm's Fairy Tales, no one elses. Same thing here: KC, MGQ, and MM have the right to use
THEIR versions of popular mythology, but they are not the only ones who created those characters. For example, a lot of the "tropes" for mythologyical characters and creatures in Japanese media mostly come from Dragon Quest and Record Of Agarest War, the former which was based on Wizardry, and all which got it's influences from DnD. And DnD lists a lot of
THEIR influences in the section "Appendix N", who references authors like Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Lovecraft, and Andre Norton. So there you go. Basically do the same thing. Take influences, and make the things your own.
>since you're denying the very concept of "fair use" while posting smut of copyrighted characters.
Have you ever considered the possibility that I just don't give a shit? I've had these types of arguments more than once, across dozens of topics, and run them into the ground following the person's logic to it's "inevitable end" or what they "need" to do if they want things to change. However never once do people actually ask what I "believe" on the topic, or what I "do" in relation to the subject. I think the first person to actually do so was this post: >>605
>So just nuking all fetish boards is fine then?
I feel like you're asking a different question than the one original posted. Depends on what you're referring to. It's entirely within Acid's power to do so because this is
HIS site. However doing say may result in traffic dropping to almost zero because people do come here for content, and the removal of it means they'll be going somewhere else.
>That just means their interpretations of the law are fallacious because they're not objective enough. Those laws are still interpreted to varying degrees. This is just tangential semantics.
That doesn't matter. Those "semantics" are used all the time to make laws that would otherwise be outright illegal. For example, the SCOTUS ruling in the 60's that declared that unequal outcomes is a sign of "discrimination" has been used as the basis for everything from Affirmative Action to college scholarships. This is despite the fact that the point of the Civil Rights laws was to
prevent discrimination, and that such "interpretations" and "Semantics" are now being used for the purposes of
CREATING discrimination.
>Even among avid consumers of pornography, there is often the belief that it is mentally harmful and should not be protected speech
The funny thing is that there is actually
ZERO evidence proving this. In fact, several studies have been conducted showing that increased access to pornography has actually resulted in a drop in sexual assaults and rape. Now if you're talking about addiction to porn, or the discussion of sexual content and one's mentally mature in being prepared for it, that's an entirely different discussion that has almost nothing to do exclusively with porn.
>These people of course have relatively little to say about one's right to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, despite those things being far more objectively and provably harmful.
Not as much as people think. A lot of the "problems" you hear about nicotine and alchohol are exaggerated, if not outright fabricated, by lobbying groups who are basically looking to bleed companies dry. In fact, as people have moved from cigarettes to vaping, those same lobbying groups are now demonizing it despite being a far healthier activity:
https://odysee.com/@johnstossel:7/let-them-vape:5
>Given the power a slaveowner has over a slave, until slavery was dying out naturally, it's a natural consequence that a slaveowner would impede any possibility of a slave saving enough to buy their freedom in most cases.
In most cases, no one is actually going to put in the effort of buying their freedom in the first place. Because they're too content with having their master provide everything. Just think about how many people actually get involved with investments and other alternative methods of cashflow compared to the amount of people who work a job all their life and refuse to pursue anything greater.
>Doesn't the concept go all the way back to the Greeks though?
Possibly, but I doubt it was the "consensus" of the time. Even the Kikepedia article doesn't makes any definate claims other than a quote from Cicero:
https://archive.ph/uTl0c
<"the very wage [wage labourers] receive is a pledge of their slavery"
And then it
IMMEDIATELY jumps to the 18th century, with it outright admitting that majority of the arguments made about "wage slavery" are fallacies created by Marx.
Who you have to remember was preaching a religion, nothing at all related to economics other than "in name only". If you look at another book from the period like the Bible, it actually talks about being generous, expediant, and unoppressive about providing the wages one has earned.
>Monster dickgirls do not prevent KC from conducting business
In the analogy, "no", but you do want to protest on "his property".
>His "property" in this analogy should be official KC sites, and other official media.
No, his property is anything having to do with MGE.
> And since this product is digital, immaterial, infinitely reproducible for practically no cost once after it's initial creation, the way it's protected from "theft" cannot be analogous to how physical products are protected.
Yes it can because those ideas required someone's labor to create. And that labor needs to be protected.
>However, as most people do not have the resources to fight back against frivolous DMCA claims
Honestly, that's their fault. If they want their works protected, then they need to go through the process of building up the resources needed that would allow their potection.
However majority of people don't, never do, and never will. So just like the slaves who will always be slaves instead of trying to become free citizens, they're going to be harassed and attacked to the end of their days because they never prepare.
>It's currently fiscal might makes right in practice
To an extent it has
ALWAYS be "might make right". In fact, the American system is actually much more beneficial because, unlike how courts used to work, you are only responsible for your own fees. Under the English rule of court systems, the loser of the trial was held responsible for paying for everything.
>It's actually KC that's breaking the law with false and frivolous DMCA claims
Then you need to provide that.
>but there is not a great enough incentive to challenge him.[Expand Post]
Then quit bitching. If you're not going to actually fight on the matter, then all you're doing is making noise and I'd rather that you'd STFU if that's how you're going to play it.
>It's called jury nullification.
That's not how juries nor the law works.