Inkbunny

FA has direct sales? This is the first I'm hearing

CeilYurei

11 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Dieff

SUPPOSEDLY has direct sales. I dunno. I never use it except for AriCub and her cute work. She doesnt do porn so never posts here.

axlegear

11 years, 4 months ago

link

Trust me, they have no such thing.

CeilYurei

11 years, 4 months ago

link

@ axlegear

Interesting.

fibs

11 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 11 years, 4 months ago by Owner

FurAffinity is the Internet Explorer of the furry web: frequently used due to momentum and laziness, but completely untrustworthy. They don't even support basic standard features like tag blacklisting, let alone anything unique or new.

CeilYurei

11 years, 4 months ago

link

Not to mntion Dragoneer is so full of himself he has COMMISSIONED rt of him looking like an FA god. Voring banned people, calling them trolls, that kind of shit.

fibs

11 years, 4 months ago

link

Good thing that sumbitch doesn't know what I look like!

Also if he ever did that I could probably just sue him, he's U.S. right?

GreenReaper

11 years, 4 months ago

link

Yes, but it's probably not actually against the law to call someone a troll. It would be to eat them, but then you'd be talking a criminal case.

fibs

11 years, 4 months ago

link

Utilizing my image or that of my self-representative character without permission is copyright infringement and, as Dragoneer would be using it to humiliate me, defamation of character.

The only protection he has is that I probably would not want to bring much attention to the situation. If he does it to someone who doesn't at all mind, then he can easily be screwed for it.

GreenReaper

11 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 11 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Mmm. Fair use for the purpose of parody? And defamation in the U.S. relies on false assertions of fact, whereas "is a troll" is an opinion.

I didn't ask to be featured in this comic, and although I really liked it, if I hadn't, I wouldn't have had much recourse in law (unlike on IB) - even though it is clearly intended to be me.

Until it happens to you, it's probably not worth bothering about, anyway.

CeilYurei

11 years, 4 months ago

link

Actually in the vore one they were also referred to as scum.

GreenReaper

11 years, 4 months ago

link

Also an opinion!

CeilYurei

11 years, 4 months ago

link

Still proves Dragoneer is a dick. And it's lible still I think.

fibs

11 years, 4 months ago

link

Fair use is a claimed defense that must be upheld in court, not an automatic safe spot. In practice, "fair use" is only useful for convincing the IP owner not to sue in the first place. "Owner doesn't feel like suing" is pretty much the only reason fanfiction and fanart can safely exist in U.S. law (they generally do too little damage to be worth the costs of prosecuting and often are beneficial via free advertising.)

Your ability to sue the individual who used your image on that comic depends largely on the funds you have for a lawyer. A good / expensive lawyer would have no trouble winning you that case just by nature of your character obviously being used and the derivative work not being educational or a direct critique of you. The thing is that a) you obviously don't mind b) you're suffering very little damage if any from that comic and c) doing that would scare people away from you / Inkbunny and be more trouble than it's worth.

The possibility of defamation was more of a pipe dream or afterthought, really. Dragoneer would be much easier to nail for IP infringement than for defamation due to the inconsistency of defamation laws across the states - not all of them require false words to constitute defamation, slander and libel being specific subcategories of that - and the relative ease of suing for IP infringement in the U.S. Anne McCaffrey and Disney are notable examples of dangerous copyright holders, whereas Hasbro is extremely lax and actively avoids prosecution except for very special circumstances.

I'm starting to notice I have a habit of going off-topic when stuff is mentioned.

nelson88

11 years, 4 months ago

link

Niceeee!^^

rautamiekka

11 years, 4 months ago

link

XP is dead anyway, even Server 2003 is, so worrying about XP is worrying about wrong shit.

Kronj

11 years, 4 months ago

link

@ rautamiekka

But, something close to a third of windows systems are xp, that's hundreds of millions of computers running it.

rautamiekka

11 years, 4 months ago

lockedlink

@ Kronj

That's their problem, and the problem is called no support and it's heavily targeted. It's either upgrade, die or switch away to, such as, Linux.

LeonHunter

11 years, 4 months ago

lockedlink

@ rautamiekka

Yes, because Linux is that much more secure. Right.

rautamiekka

11 years, 4 months ago

lockedlink

Yes, among other reasons.

fibs

11 years, 4 months ago

lockedlink

If you don't think Linux systems are more secure than Windows you know little about either.

There are several reasons Linux fedora-tippers claim Linux-types are "immune to viruses" and here is one: even if the user is a complete idiot, malicious software on a Linux system will be unable to access any system files because Linux doesn't passively give any user accounts administrative permissions.

Windows however does, meaning that any malicious software that runs while an "administrator user" is logged on has free roam over the entire system.

You can make Windows a ton much more secure simply by making a separate administrator account and never signing into it unless you need to perform a specific administrative function. This will still not make Windows as secure as Linux because Windows is coded like a circus and has no shortage of exploits and errors. Internet Explorer alone has dozens of huge bugs and security holes in any given month, as evidence by Microsoft patching that many every few months.

LeonHunter

11 years, 4 months ago

lockedlink

Edited 11 years, 4 months ago by Owner

"	FibrielSolaer wrote:
	If you don't think Linux systems are more secure than Windows you know little about either.

This from a person who ignores the existence of User Account Control. I suggest you use Google my friend, less you want to come across as not only ignorant but also benighted.

fibs

11 years, 4 months ago

lockedlink

Did you seriously just use the incredibly broken and exploitable UAC as an attempt to ignore everything I just said to you? Of course you did. Typical Windows user.

I just said that the problem with Windows is that your user account itself gains administrative powers instead of a separate account, and here you are proving my point by showing me another Windows feature that... gives administrative powers to the user account.

Pro-tip: Malware can and always has very easily exploited "privilege elevation" vulnerabilities that have existed in Windows since Vista and have never existed in Linux. One way to do this? The malware can just try to run and thus pop up a confirmation prompt. 9/10 times a user will click "OK" just to make it go away. Real secure, Windows.

These exploits would not exist in Windows if the administrative account was completely separate from any user account. You know, like it is in Linux.

But please, continue ignoring what I'm saying to you and trusting Microsoft's word that their horrible design and shoddy coding is secure in the face of ample evidence to the contrary.

LeonHunter

11 years, 4 months ago

lockedlink

Actually. I speak as someone who realises that one cannot group and quantify security exploits as a means of demonstrating that a particular system, product or service is more secure than an alternative. That is all. Security is and must always be a holistic approach. You cannot isolate it down to any one component and it is the height of intellectual dishonestly when you do.

I would also remind you that the user account does not “have administrative privileges” until such a point in time that the UAC module grants it to a specific process. That is the whole point of UAC.

Furthermore you have proved my point, “The malware can just try to run and thus pop up a confirmation prompt. 9/10 times a user will click "OK" just to make it go away.” – It is the user, not the operating system, that is at fault in this scenario. If an application instructed an unknowledgeable user: “This application must be run with administrative privileges” – They would likely do the same thing on Linux as occurs on Windows.

Inkbunny

11 years, 4 months ago

lockedlink

This thread is no longer relevant to the topic of this post, and so has been locked.

GreenReaper

11 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 11 years, 4 months ago by Owner

@ Kronj

They have a few options for this issue:
* Use any other browser than Internet Explorer.
* Upgrade to XP SP3 or a later version of Windows. If they have a legal copy, this is free.
* Change to another operating system.

rautamiekka

11 years, 4 months ago

link