Roro07
Well-known member
Did you even ask permission to use the sprites?
Xtreme_Gear
Active member
You've shown no signs of progress. All you did was show random pictures that aren't yours. Are you going to show your "progress"? At least show a gif or something. (I meant jif sorry Shadow)
Mikhael Blur
Administrator
Administrator
You speak as if words have a fixed set of meanings that are universal for all people, which is undoubtedly not the case, each person exists within their own semantic field. Therefore, I won’t try to convince you that the meaning of the word “theft” as you use it, is somehow incorrect. I’ll merely point out that it differs significantly from what many other people understand by it. Perhaps, over time, the meaning you use for this word will become predominant, but for now, that’s unlikely. That’s the first point.
Next, I’ll note that the word “theft” usually carries a negative connotation. And the fact that a certain group of people has included certain actions in their extensional or intensional definition of “theft” does not at all imply that these actions must be perceived negatively by others. I can attach any meaning to the word “theft” but that won’t make the concept inherently negative, no matter what it signifies. It’s simply your linguistic game, and others are not obligated to play along.
Xntimodern
Member
It's a very unusual semantic shift to call something like this stealing (using someone else's assets in your own work without publishing them). It would be interesting to conduct a survey somewhere and find out how many people attribute this meaning to the word "stealing". Semantics is a very interesting area, in my opinion, and everyone should study it.
Xntimodern
Member
Usually, such an action as publishing such a work (which uses other people's assets, for such use of which there is no permission) is problematized. Problematization of the very use of other people's assets in one's projects "for personal use" (not for publication) has never been considered a problem before, in my opinion.
And now we are faced with what I would call a "fork in problematization". On the one hand, it looks like people are seriously unhappy with the fact that someone considers it right to use other people's assets obtained without permission, regardless of whether they will be published. On the other hand, there is a feeling that some participants in the discussion simply express their thoughts and feelings poorly, and in reality the problem for them is what they think will happen in the future - this project will probably be published. And many scripters learn the language in this way, this is the most accessible way.
If the first option is true, this is a "slippery slope" that can cause a lot of problems for people in the future. For example, many people now use other people's assets (without permission) for learning purposes, and this helps a lot. For example, I learned SRB2 LUA scripting at a decent (in my opinion) level by researching and editing other people's work (though I never published it). If I thought such a practice was immoral, I probably would never have mastered SRB2 LUA scripting.
If the second option is true, then I don't see any need for a semantic shift - that is, calling such a practice "stealing". It is enough to condemn the person's intentions if they seem immoral to you. In this case, you only need to condemn the intention to publish this addon. And semantic shifts have their price, and my ethical intuition tells me that they should be handled quite carefully.
Xtreme_Gear
Active member
Theft does in fact apply in this situation. He did not ask for permission to even use his sprites. Do I have to explain this like you're a child? "You speak as if words have a fixed set of meanings that are universal for all people" Let me guess, you don't know what "theft" is? Stealing. Taking what isn't yours. He took what wasn't his, so it is theft. Maybe you need to recheck the dictionary? "I can attach any meaning to the word “theft” but that won’t make the concept inherently negative" You can't just stick any definition to a word to make a "point". It just shows the lack of coherence. You'll make up anything to create a false sense of argument, won't you?
Moreover, this may just be a cover for you to refuse to do your job. Obviously, he stole many things, yet, you choose to ignore it. Why? Well, you probably wouldn't be able to explain without the use of mental gymnastics to make a "point". The word "theft" is universally used as a negative word. If not, feel free to show proof. Oh wait, you don't have any.
Xtreme_Gear
Active member
There's obvious bias in your argument. "Everyone should study it". But still, like Mikhael, you have yet to show proof. How is it unusual? I will go by using your definition of the word "steal". "It's a very unusual semantic shift to call something like this stealing (using someone else's assets in your own work without publishing them)." The whole point is that he's going to use it when he publishes it. So, when he finishes the mod, he will publish it, therefore it is stealing. It may not seem like a problem now, but when he finishes it, you would consider it stealing, would you not? Therefore, it would be wise to stop him now.
Xntimodern
Member
Now, when he publishes this, it can be called "theft" in the popular figurative, indirect sense of the word (the direct sense implies physical theft, you will hardly argue with this). But you are trying to call the intention to perform this action "theft". If we extend this practice to everything, then any intention to perform an action will be called by the same word as the action itself. This will create great confusion. Therefore, intentions and actions are separated in language. You are trying to move from semantic differentiation in the opposite direction - when more things are called by fewer words. Since language is limited, people have to, in fact, call an infinite number of things by a finite number of words, and this often creates confusion. But your practice makes the situation even worse - you, in fact, suggest calling an infinite number of things by EVEN FEWER words than those currently used in the language. I call this the path of semantic degradation.
Xntimodern
Member
The word "take" itself has many meanings (starting with the direct physical one, which some people believe should be limited to). And if you want to seriously approach the analysis of the meaning of the word "theft", based on the intensional definition you have given, you need to analyze the meanings of the word "take". The polysemy of the word "take" itself essentially generates many definitions of the word "theft", each of which will have a different meaning of the word "take" (in order not to get confused, you can substitute different indexes - 1, 2, 3, etc. - a very convenient technique for conceptual differentiation). In fact, there are many words in the language that are overflowing with many meanings, and in order to "at least somehow generalize" people give them definitions that will accommodate this multitude. However, such an approach, in my opinion, only aggravates the confusion, creating the illusion that the meaning of the word is actually one. In the case of the word "theft" there are many meanings, as well as with the word "take".
I will not comment on the rest of your speech, since it looks more like a personal attack than an attempt to understand what is happening and reveal yout understanding.
Xtreme_Gear
Active member
I wasn't using the word "take". That inaccuracy in itself just destroys your entire argument.
Soniku11
Well-known member
While in a broad sense "theft" is taking stuff that arent from your authority without permission, yes, it IS technically true, it all will come down to each different and individual case, as all cases are different. Placing everyone in the same bag would be a bold, and rather stupid move if i say so myself.
The fact why this "Reusability" topic its so complex and it never seems to die out, but get stronger the more it gets talked about, its because the "INTENT" the person have with such content. Theres always a context as to why someone is taking such content and then promptly start to modify it without having asking previous permission.
The reasons are several, and as i said, it all depends on the intent you have with them.
Good Intentions:
1) For the sake of Preservation, because you really liked the mod, and you dont want it to become outdated and become either lost media, or just unplayable on the modern versions of the game.
2) Using them for self learning purposes, getting to know how things work, and need to be arranged in a way to make it work.
3) Upgrading the mod, as its expected, some people may found a lot of issues with some mods, and they really want to fix them, but the creator refuses, leaving the mod to either become outdated and unplayable, as i said on the previous point, having a broken mod because the creator doesnt care about fixing anything, or even updating it to newer versions at all, neither giving permissions.
4) The person is just too naive and not used to the fact theres rules all over the internet, and all places have different set of rules and logics, which may end up in missunderstandings because the person didnt knew any better.
Bad Intentions:
1) The editor was either too lazy, or too afraid to learn how to use the tools at their disposal, to learn how to get out of their "confort bubble", by knowing how to create original stuff from their own hand, and refuse to learn how to use said tools, going the easy way by taking stuff that isnt from their authority, then claiming that "yeah bro, i made it myself", because they want to feel they have accomplished something.
2) Trolling, as its expected, its no surprise people with the intentions to desprestige you, and make you look bad on the community with bad taste jokes and modifications that only make you look like a fool, someone whos bad and is not to be trusted, this leading to people taking your creations then modifying them to ridicule you as much as they can, then claim you gave them permissions as part of their bit.
3) Feeling of "acomplishing" something, as i stated on the first point, people are too lazy to learn nothing, but they really want the world know "hey, i did something", because they have weak egos and are desperate of being someone in the community, even if this means stealing content from people who already did the effort to create something original and new, taking it without asking, then claiming that its theirs instead, they created it.
So, next time theres a post about someone editing a mod that was already created, and they don't state they asked permission, neither stating they didnt..
The smartest move is to first ask politely the OP (the person who created the post youre commending on) to clarify things up, if they asked permissions, if they didnt, or what are the intentions with the mod to begin with.
Its always wise to ask first to both parties, the Original Creator as "proof" the person DID asked for permission, and the Editor to at least know what the intentions are with the mod itself.
Not everyone does it with Bad Intentions, and not everyone does it with Good Intentions.
The situation changes on every case, as all cases are different from each other.
The fact why this "Reusability" topic its so complex and it never seems to die out, but get stronger the more it gets talked about, its because the "INTENT" the person have with such content. Theres always a context as to why someone is taking such content and then promptly start to modify it without having asking previous permission.
The reasons are several, and as i said, it all depends on the intent you have with them.
Good Intentions:
1) For the sake of Preservation, because you really liked the mod, and you dont want it to become outdated and become either lost media, or just unplayable on the modern versions of the game.
2) Using them for self learning purposes, getting to know how things work, and need to be arranged in a way to make it work.
3) Upgrading the mod, as its expected, some people may found a lot of issues with some mods, and they really want to fix them, but the creator refuses, leaving the mod to either become outdated and unplayable, as i said on the previous point, having a broken mod because the creator doesnt care about fixing anything, or even updating it to newer versions at all, neither giving permissions.
4) The person is just too naive and not used to the fact theres rules all over the internet, and all places have different set of rules and logics, which may end up in missunderstandings because the person didnt knew any better.
Bad Intentions:
1) The editor was either too lazy, or too afraid to learn how to use the tools at their disposal, to learn how to get out of their "confort bubble", by knowing how to create original stuff from their own hand, and refuse to learn how to use said tools, going the easy way by taking stuff that isnt from their authority, then claiming that "yeah bro, i made it myself", because they want to feel they have accomplished something.
2) Trolling, as its expected, its no surprise people with the intentions to desprestige you, and make you look bad on the community with bad taste jokes and modifications that only make you look like a fool, someone whos bad and is not to be trusted, this leading to people taking your creations then modifying them to ridicule you as much as they can, then claim you gave them permissions as part of their bit.
3) Feeling of "acomplishing" something, as i stated on the first point, people are too lazy to learn nothing, but they really want the world know "hey, i did something", because they have weak egos and are desperate of being someone in the community, even if this means stealing content from people who already did the effort to create something original and new, taking it without asking, then claiming that its theirs instead, they created it.
So, next time theres a post about someone editing a mod that was already created, and they don't state they asked permission, neither stating they didnt..
The smartest move is to first ask politely the OP (the person who created the post youre commending on) to clarify things up, if they asked permissions, if they didnt, or what are the intentions with the mod to begin with.
Its always wise to ask first to both parties, the Original Creator as "proof" the person DID asked for permission, and the Editor to at least know what the intentions are with the mod itself.
Not everyone does it with Bad Intentions, and not everyone does it with Good Intentions.
The situation changes on every case, as all cases are different from each other.
Xtreme_Gear
Active member
The only reason it is "confusing" to you is that you choose to make it confusing for yourself, therefore, that is an illusion of an argument.
Xtreme_Gear
Active member
The whole point is that he didn't even ask. Why do people make things difficult?
Soniku11
Well-known member
A lotta people treat it like a capital sin, and while yes, stealing is wrong, not everyone should be treated with the same sanctions and penalized the same way, as then again, everyone has different intentions with it.
The people with good intentions didnt knew any better, didnt mean no real harm, and only wanted to improve the mod or take it to newer versions, but they had no way on contacting the original creator, or they either refused. And this can be only sanctioned with a small warning of "be careful next time, even if you really liked it".
And the people with bad intentions may need a more severe sanction, as they are doing it outta lazyness, or because theyre in general not good people, willing to create things by themselves, taking stuff that was already created, changing the name and claiming its theirs instead, doing harm to everyone involved in the original creation on the mod in the process, and these people cannot care less about that.
So be careful how do you treat people who do portleggers, as not everyone has the same intentions or do it for the same reasons.
Xntimodern
Member
Xtreme_Gear
Active member
That was merely an example of the definition. Please try harder at making a point.
Xtreme_Gear
Active member
This is purely an example of turning a bad thing in a positive light. All of a sudden you bring up the good and bad intentions of stealing. Yet, it's obviously the bad intention.
1. He stole the mod.
2. Didn't credit the original creator.
3. Took credit for everything.
4. And when he was caught red-handed, he said he was going to pay the creator, an obvious way to avoid getting in trouble.
Soniku11
Well-known member
I never said bad acts must be gone unpunished just because they werent done with bad intentions.
In fact, i did the opposite, stating that people who do it with good intentions must not have punishments as severe as people who do it with bad intentions.
Xntimodern
Member
Yes, that's right. You gave a definition using the word "take", and it was the semantic fork in your definition that I pointed out. The word "take" itself can be understood in different ways. If you are trying to reveal the meaning of the word "theft", you need to reveal the meaning of the word "take" (preferably in such a way as to avoid more semantic forks), or come up with another definition. The word "take" is quite ambiguous.
Xtreme_Gear
Active member
"The word "take" is quite ambiguous." Yes, but I gave context. You didn't. Therefore it isn't ambiguous.