NAF still Banned (on LL) ?

[davisev5225]

Just now, dagobaking said:

 

Do you have knowledge of any legal team at Nexus reviewing my case?

 

I've already answered that question.  Also, what does that have to do with what you quoted?  If you are serious about litigating, then YOU will need an attorney, and usually the first piece of advice any competent attorney will give their client is to go "radio silent" about the issue.  Any public commentary can be used against you.

[dagobaking]

2 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

I've already answered that question.

 

Where? I don't see that...

[davisev5225]

3 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

Where? I don't see that...

 

Right here.

 

  

20 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

Speculation, but grounded in reality.  Nexus is a media empire of sorts, with lots of money involved.  If you think for a moment that they're going to "cowboy" their way through that, you're sorely mistaken.  Remember, this is the same organization that decided they could take legal ownership of distribution of any content that has ever been uploaded, and no one has prevailed in any challenge against it.  They most definitely have a legal team handling legal aspects of running their business and website.

 

 

And you haven't answered my question: what does the existence (or lack thereof) of a Nexus legal team have to do with what YOUR attorneys should be advising YOU to do?  YOU'RE the one that will have to initiate a lawsuit, not Nexus.  The ball is in your court, and all you're doing by continuing to respond is provide potential ammunition to your opposition.

Edited January 5, 2024 by davisev5225

[Yannis Valentine]

4 minutes ago, DoctaSax said:

 

Please refrain from these allegations. It doesn't help NAF in any way that its fans resort to them.

Comments of a person in a forum should not affect the staff decision on a mod being allowed in this site that kinda calls for preferences

[dagobaking]

4 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

I've already answered that question.

 

Found it. Looks like you added in an edit after I read.

 

Anyway, so, you say that I'm full of shit on the basis of something you speculate about? lol

 

You have no idea what back and forth I've already had with Nexus. About legal teams. Or anything.

 

Thank you for your "advice". But, I can tell you that you are way behind the curve on knowing the details about this. And you are way behind me in experience dealing with law suits, etc.

[dagobaking]

2 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

And you haven't answered my question: what does the existence (or lack thereof) of a Nexus legal team have to do with what YOUR attorneys should be advising YOU to do?  YOU'RE the one that will have to initiate a lawsuit, not Nexus.  The ball is in your court, and all you're doing by continuing to respond is provide potential ammunition to your opposition.

 

Thank you for your advice, Davi. I've been there, done that. I'm 99% confident many more times than you.

 

In the meantime, I will stand up for myself with truthful statements here.

[davisev5225]

1 minute ago, dagobaking said:

 

Thank you for your advice, Davi. I've been there, done that. I'm 99% confident many more times than you.

 

In the meantime, I will stand up for myself with truthful statements here.

 

Your (potential) funeral.  I've made my points, so this seems as good a time as any to exit the conversation.  It's clear no one is changing anyone else's mind.

[dagobaking]

5 minutes ago, Yannis Valentine said:

Comments of a person in a forum should not affect the staff decision on a mod being allowed in this site that kinda calls for preferences

 

You know what. When SnapDragon comes around pretending like he's a poor innocent flower, it does matter for everyone to see the true character of the crew surrounding him and what their "community" philosophy is.

 

LL has a history of respecting mod author rights. You guys have a different vision that involves forcing everyone to go open-source whether they want to or not.

[shittyguy]

29 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

I've gone over that multiple times now.

no you have not. talk is not proof, a side by side video is proof. questions do you own the xml format? no. do own skeleton mod that all mods uses works with xml? no. is the ui the same? no.
does aaf highlight/glow the actor when selecting them? no. does naf make doppelgangers? no.
if you can't show any proof this is all just fear mongering and you wanting to control the adult modding scene.

Edited January 5, 2024 by shittyguy

[dagobaking]

1 minute ago, davisev5225 said:

Your (potential) funeral.  I've made my points, so this seems as good a time as any to exit the conversation.  It's clear no one is changing anyone else's mind.

 

No. By all means point out to me where I've written something that would be used against me.

[dagobaking]

1 minute ago, shittyguy said:

no you have not. talk is not proof, a side by side video is proof. questions do you own the xml format? no. do own skeleton mod that all uses works with xml? no. is the ui the same? no.
does aaf highlight/glow the actor when selecting them? no. does naf make doppelgangers? no.
if you can't show any proof this is all just fear mongering and you wanting to control the adult modding scene.

 

Read it again.

 

Talk is not proof. But, it can be an argument that is true.

[shittyguy]

1 minute ago, dagobaking said:

 

Read it again.

 

Talk is not proof. But, it can be an argument that is true.

then show some proof. all i see you talking away and no proof.
show it and if you can't your lying out your ass. show a video side by side and make it a live video to where you  download code live.

[dagobaking]

Just now, shittyguy said:

then show some proof. all i see you talking away and no proof.
show it and if you can't your lying out your ass. show a video side by side and make it a live video to where you  download code live.

 

I don't need to. My truthful arguments are enough.

[shittyguy]

Just now, dagobaking said:

 

I don't need to. My truthful arguments are enough.

dude no it not. if you can't prove your in right, then all we know is your lying and you not wanting to show proof, is proof your lying or you want to have a monopoly over the adult modding scene. if you don't show any proof ill be calling you dago the lier from on out if there is no proof to be shown.

[dagobaking]

9 minutes ago, shittyguy said:

dude no it not. if you can't prove your in right, then all we know is your lying and you not wanting to show proof, is proof your lying or you want to have a monopoly over the adult modding scene. if you don't show any proof ill be calling you dago the lier from on out if there is no proof to be shown.

 

shittyguy.

 

With all due respect, why send you anything? Because you are genuinely concerned and want to find out the truth? Just given the comments you have already made its obvious that there is nothing ever that will change your mind. Jesus could appear in your room and hand you the "proof" in the exact format you expect and you would still try to find some way to argue about it.

 

That is because you are not driven by any ethics here. You are driven by your imagination of what you think NAF might become.

 

Sorry. I'm not going to take that sitting down. Not off my back, sir.

Edited January 5, 2024 by dagobaking

[shittyguy]

2 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

shittyguy.

 

With all due respect, why send you anything? Because you are genuinely concerned and want to find out the truth? Just given the comments you have already made its obvious that there is nothing ever that will change your mind. Jesus could appear in your room and hand you the "proof" in the exact format you expect and you would still try to find some way to argue about it.

 

That is because you are not driven by any ethics here. You are driven by your imagination of what you think SnapDragon's mod might become.

 

Sorry. I'm not going to take that sitting down. Not off my back, sir.

why is it so hard for you to understand for me to believe you, is that all i want is hard proof. do to you not showing any is making hard to believe you.
reason i want proof and hard proof at that it and not just me on here who want to see proof there are others.
i want to see proof to that is it. if can't do that then your nothing more then a lier.

[dagobaking]

27 minutes ago, shittyguy said:

why is it so hard for you to understand for me to believe you, is that all i want is hard proof. do to you not showing any is making hard to believe you.
reason i want proof and hard proof at that it and not just me on here who want to see proof there are others.
i want to see proof to that is it. if can't do that then your nothing more then a lier.

 

Why is it so hard for you to realize that I dont trust your integrity at all? Have you read your own posts toward me?

 

You just want some mod-related outcome. You don't care about proof, the law or truth. If you did, you would acknowledge that I've already been very clear about that and nobody here, not one person from the entire SnapDragon crew has mounted a counter-argument that stands up to basic scrutiny. Instead, you just repeat the same question in a wishful attempt to manipulate the criteria of infringement to an area more narrow than what the law actually provides.

 

As I explained before, the problem with NAF is made clear by (among other issues) the fact that it is unusable without referring to the AAF documentation.

Edited January 5, 2024 by dagobaking

[shittyguy]

8 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

Why is it so hard for you to realize that I dont trust your integrity at all? Have you read your own posts toward me?

 

You just want some mod-related outcome. You don't care about proof, the law or truth. If you did, you would acknowledge that I've already been very clear about that and nobody here, not one person from the entire SnapDragon crew has mounted an counter-argument that stands up to basic scrutiny. Instead, you just repeat the same question in a wishful attempt to manipulate the criteria of infringement to an area more narrow than what the law actually provides.

 

As I explained before, the problem with NAF is made clear by the fact that it is unusable without referring to the AAF documentation.

dude i do care about the truth, but do you? clear you don't, you did start this drama to begin with.
i said i just want proof but clear you don't want to prove your self with any proof.
i don't know why you think i don't want truth but i want to see hard proof.
so show some god damn proof and don't reply back until you have some. and if you keep with this "you don't want the truth" bs is going to make me think you been lying all this time to start drama.

Edited January 5, 2024 by shittyguy

[dagobaking]

Just now, shittyguy said:

dude i do care about the truth, but do you? clear you don't, you did start this drama to begin with.
i said i just want proof but clear you don't want to prove your self with any proof.
i don't why you think i don't want truth but i want to see hard proof.
so show some god damn proof and don't reply back until you have some. and if you keep with this "you don't want the truth" bs is going to make me think you been lying all this time to start drama.

 

Prove that you care about the truth.

[shittyguy]

Just now, dagobaking said:

 

Prove that you care about the truth.

how do you want me to do that?

[dagobaking]

1 minute ago, shittyguy said:

how do you want me to do that?

 

With a side by side video.

[shittyguy]

6 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

With a side by side video.

dude you have the source code aaf how am i going to do a side by side?
why is it hard for you to do it??

[dagobaking]

1 minute ago, shittyguy said:

dude you have the source code aaf how am i going to do a side by side?
why is it hard for you to do it??

 

Prove to me that copyright law says there is only infringement when source code is copied.

 

[Do you want me to prove otherwise?]

Edited January 5, 2024 by dagobaking

[shittyguy]

18 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

Prove to me that copyright law says there is only infringement when source code is copied.

"What is the license to use the source code?

As the next step, even if the code is copyrighted, you may still have various rights to use it without modification. On one end of the spectrum is code that is public domain; either through explicit permission by the author of the code or because the code no longer falls under copyright protection. On the other end of the spectrum is code that provides no license for usage; in that case, you are strictly prohibited from copying that code until you obtain a license.

What about websites like Stack Overflow that seems to provide code for free? Well, it turns out that Stack Overflow provides for a specific licensing scheme under the Creative Commons regime. Typically, that means that you need only provide attribution when using the code. Essentially, you should include a comment above the source code that provides information on where you obtained the code and who originally wrote it. (There are some good resources online on how to do this.)

What about personal blogs or other websites that don’t specify the license? In those cases, you have no license! You have to get permission from the author to use the source code."

this leave a quick question do you have a license or is aaf copyright protected.
does also say public domain but does that count for fallout 4 because we do agree with eula so does that main all mods are public domain?
edit: but we still don't know what code was copied or "stolen"

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/do-code-snippets-violate-copyright-law-russ-pearlman

Edited January 5, 2024 by shittyguy

[dagobaking]

3 minutes ago, shittyguy said:

"What is the license to use the source code?

As the next step, even if the code is copyrighted, you may still have various rights to use it without modification. On one end of the spectrum is code that is public domain; either through explicit permission by the author of the code or because the code no longer falls under copyright protection. On the other end of the spectrum is code that provides no license for usage; in that case, you are strictly prohibited from copying that code until you obtain a license.

What about websites like Stack Overflow that seems to provide code for free? Well, it turns out that Stack Overflow provides for a specific licensing scheme under the Creative Commons regime. Typically, that means that you need only provide attribution when using the code. Essentially, you should include a comment above the source code that provides information on where you obtained the code and who originally wrote it. (There are some good resources online on how to do this.)

What about personal blogs or other websites that don’t specify the license? In those cases, you have no license! You have to get permission from the author to use the source code."

this leave a quick question do you have a license or is aaf copyright protected.
does also say public domain but does that count for fallout 4 because we do agree with eula so does that main all mods are public domain?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/do-code-snippets-violate-copyright-law-russ-pearlman

 

This doesn't show that copyright infringement is limited to source code...

 

Software is copyright protected automatically. Just like other works. The EULA does not make all mods public domain.

 

And how is your questioning not transparently proving my point about you being driven by a mod-related result? You're just rationalizing and testing new theories in one direction. Gee! No agenda here!