Please do more to encourage remixing and the uploading of .step files

[MalcTheOracle]

@WOOGiE

this is the model I took the hinge from, to use in my own design…

You acknowledge you took the hinge from another model, but, nothing in your model listing shows this was the source as required by licences that allow remixes and if they don’t, you can’t publish a model based on a remix.

That is not me saying that, it is the law saying it.

You agree to the terms of a license when using a model based on the rules that license enforces.

@WOOGiE

It really wasn’t just a copy and paste operation to incorporate it onto my own model,

It doesn’t have to be, you incorporated the efforts of another in your work, it doesn’t matter how much effort you added on top to make their thing work with your thing.

@WOOGiE

and I am also torn on whether or not something like that has any right to have a license attached to it in the first place

This one was probably the worst thing you could say.

You deny someone else the right to hold a licence on their effort? You deny their right to do so because you want it for your model and you think it is unfair they don’t let you?

It is akin to walking into someone’s house, stealing a can of come and saying they shouldn’t complain I needed it!

@WOOGiE

I mean just the super basic hinge, not the entire model

Yeah, you restricted the parts you stole to the ones you needed, are we to commend your restraint?

@WOOGiE

If I had remodeled it from scratch, rather than hacking away at it with a digital hammer and chisel (like an idiot), would that make it any better in your eyes?

I think you are asking “if I designed my own version, would that be better”.

Do you need others to answer that?

• It would have complied with the license.
• You wouldn’t have stolen another’s work.
• You would have learned something in the process.

These all seem like obvious answers, I don’t understand the need for the question.

@WOOGiE

This is the sort of dumb shiz I am talking about. Far too restrictive and ridiculous. It’s a cylinder with a cone on either end!

Yeah, why should others get to say what can and can’t be done with their efforts?

• Is it not enough they allow others to print their work?
• Should the be forced to handle over the rights for any use?
• Should they let anyone sell their work for your gain?
• Should they pay you to steal their work?

Where does it end?

@WOOGiE

On the flip side, look at this convo I had just moments ago

So, you understand consensual conversations where party an asks party b for permission.

The weird thing is, you never did this with the model you remixed from another.

Your earlier post had a simile breakdown where you explained how great you are and fully respect the work of others and offer full attribution, yet failed to do any of that in practice.

Your words are writing cheques your actions can’t cash.

@WOOGiE

It’s a cylinder with a cone on either end!

It isn’t, it was something you couldn’t do, didn’t do and took from someone else.

This is why professionals exist, amateurs don’t know so they pay professionals for their experience.

The difference here is you stole, complained you are not allowed to steal, belittled the part you could make and have repeatedly tried to justify your theft as it had no value.

Yet, it had value to you as you couldn’t make that part or you wouldn’t have stolen it in the first place.

The strange thing is you told everyone you stole it, I assume expecting a round of applause from your peers for your brilliance.

The strangest thing is, you came back and doubled down on your ignorance of your poor decision: the theft and the admission of theft.

I can only wonder how you would feel if you made something, said, that can be printed, but, nothing else and someone brags they stole your work.

I have to wonder what you would say to a bag their or a burglar, I have to assume you would happily give your stuff to them as you place no value on your goods nor ill will towards criminals.

I can only assume your entire model catalog is filled with stolen parts and no attribution to those that allow it.

@WOOGiE

Because the website allowed me to do that, I thought it was ok.

The license told you otherwise.

Do you know why designer spend hours, days, weeks on prototypes, on printing minute design tweaks to get the perfect whatever to work exactly as intended and to print without failures?

I am not sure you do.

I hope you learn how to do things for yourself and stop this attitude of others owe me their knowledge for free and without permission.

[WOOGiE]

Do you understand the repercussions of what you are saying? It seems like you are advocating for the copyrighting of basic geometric shapes, and very simple mechanisms that have been around for thousands of years.

Can you imagine how much less progress we would have made as a species if every little thing was licensed up the wazoo?

Of course I could have created that myself, it just made life a tad bit easier (or so I thought). It actually made life much harder going about it that way, but that isn’t the point.

I didn’t copy some new novel idea, I so I disagree that any law was broken.

There is no way a complaint against my reuse and modification of that common device would stand up in court.

No offence intended, but I think you are being intentionally pedantic in order to win this argument, rather that looking at the bigger picture.

[MalcTheOracle]

@WOOGiE

Do you understand the repercussions of what you are saying?

YES.

@WOOGiE

It seems like you are advocating for the copyrighting of basic geometric shapes

Not even close.

@WOOGiE

and very simple mechanisms that have been around for thousands of years.

Yet you couldn’t figure out how to do it and stole someone else’s.

A basic geometric shape would be a cylinder, cone, cuboid or elliptoid.

A hinge is none of those.

It does use the cylinders and cuboids in very specific ways, none of which are even close to basic geometric shapes.

It is a complex mechanism, albeit simple in design, to achieve a defined function.

None of this is important, though, as you can reinvent that he’ll.

The issue you keep forgetting isn’t even closely related to that poor argument.

You took someone else’s work who did not give permission, and believe you are allowed to, as you were incapable of creating the (in your words) simple geometric shape yourself.

@WOOGiE

Of course I could have created that myself,

You clearly couldn’t, as you didn’t and admitted as such.

@WOOGiE

it just made life a tad bit easier

It made it possible, not easier, because you couldn’t.

@WOOGiE

I didn’t copy some new novel idea

An idea doesn’t need to be novel or new to mean you are in the wrong.

You also appear to be confusing so many things, to name one, contract law vs IP.

@WOOGiE

so I disagree that any law was broken

Well, you are wrong about basic law as well.

@WOOGiE

There is no way a complaint against my reuse and modification of that common device would stand up in court.

You knowingly entered into a contract and broke the terms of that contract, I guess you have not heard of contract law.

@WOOGiE

No offence intended

Anyone who starts a sentence with this phrase always means to offend.

@WOOGiE

but I think you are being intentionally pedantic in order to win this argument, rather that looking at the bigger picture

The most important thing here is YOU asked US what WE thought of YOUR actions.

Many have been appalled, some have replied, and some have marked each post with their beliefs.

It is important to note that much of this is for legally concerned, morally thoughtful people who read this and think, “I will not do the things that guy did, because I wish to do it correctly.”

You are breaking the law after telling people who are only ever doing the right thing, minimise what you did in the hopes people will not think poorly of you and then argue legal points so widely incorrect as to be laughable.

You are in the wrong, you may not believe it, but it just means you are in the wrong and wrong about your position at the same time.