Check out the v16 1st Anniversary Update patch notes!
- Last Active
- March 5, 1987
Btw there are many questions with wrong or very questionable answers.
As just one example"Does 1000kg iron ball weight nothing in space?"
Answer in this game is Yes-It does weight nothing. But to my best knowledge it does indeed weight more than nothing here is why:1. You need to define many things including space in that question because you are in space right now! Whole earth is in space and there is space inside earth too. Sun is in space and you would not like your weight close to that thing. If you weight 100kg,sun would make you weight 2707.2KG!!!
And we surely think about sun as "something in space"
2. It does weight more than nothing even outside of our atmosphere. Lets say It would be possible to get infinitely far away from any celestial body,I made some math and in such case it would still weight 0.0000000780 grams measured from 0.02Vt/3
Because 1000kg object itself does have its own gravity,someone could argue it would be more because of "power vacuum" that would get filled with it.
You are welcome to prove me wrong but what your math does need to reach is 0,and it just can not :^) anything above 0 is more than nothing
Even if you calculate that it would have 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 nanograms,it is more than nothing.
But It is not like we can truly test that yet,because we would have to go far away from anything big,and it is pretty "impossible".
I would at very least not ask such questions and pretend to be 100% sure answer is no or yes
Interesting. I thought it was common knowledge that even when something is in space, as long as it is being affected by a gravity, then it has weight. I will argue however that if something did get far away enough from any sort of object ... then it should be weightless. Even with its own gravity it would be pulling toward its center of gravity and wouldn't really apply that force in any one direction, effectively making it weightless. The exception is if it was shaped oddly to where one part of the object could be affecting another part. Like a U shaped object. It would weigh different amounts depending on which side you weigh it on. At least it should in theory from my understanding.
I feel like there is a massive misconception going about on the forums what actually counts as copyright and what doesn't, even more is that everyone generalises it into one rule, yet a lot of people are failing to understand that Copyright differs by each country with it's own set of rules and guidelines. The hardest one that people don't seem to realise is that in some countries, derivative works and fan-content is wildly accepted and is even allowed to be sold and used.
Believe it or not, a lot of artists do not know that fanart cannot be sold either. This is why they have had panels at Comicon on how copyright works and whether or not fanart is allowed to be sold. A rule of thumb is, if you don't own it ... you probably shouldn't sell it. The moment you sell something, fair use essentially flies right out the window unless the work is transformative enough. But even using a part of another persons work and making money off of it can cause you a lot of grief, and the court may even rule in favor of you paying a percentage of all you have made off that work.
Last but not least, your argument's logic here is a bit faulty. In some countries, you are allowed to pirate, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. We can play the game of what countries have what laws and such, but I think it's important to recognize that there are tons of countries with outlandish laws.
It's not like the US everywhere, where if you don't actively hold your copyright to the object you trademark you lose all rights to it, and that is mostly why almost everywhere in the world copyright is ruled in court by case by case basis as long as it's not extensively trade market and filed so, not only that but currently in the US the copyright law is outdated and ineffective, because none of the rules made were ever taking the internet into account as you won't believe it, but internet hasn't always been as prominent as it is these days, back then you would be lucky if people were able to post a picture of their cat with a whopping size of 80kb on a message board after uploading it for four hours.
Ok, I need to stop you right there. Copyrights and trademarks are two separate things. They are not really related. You never lose your rights to a copyright unless you give those rights away to someone else. Or if you die and a certain amount of time passes (forget how long) it then goes into the public domain. A copyright is automatically achieved when you create something. A trademark, however, is a word, phrase, slogan, logo, or something along those lines, and it prevents other people from using it within the same or similar industry. For example, let's say Kentucky Fried Chicken trademarked KFC. This would only apply to food service. No other company in the food industry can use KFC. But if a car dealer wanted to use KFC for their company, Kentucky's Fastest Cars, they can file a trademark as well and not be in violation with Kentucky Fried Chicken's trademark.
You can also lose a trademark if you don't enforce it when someone else uses it. The whole idea of a trademark is to protect any other company essentially masquerading as your company or misleading customers into thinking it's the same company as your own.
Now as for copyright law being outdated? You are correct. But, the part where it's outdated is when it comes to handling digital goods and what is and isn't considered fair use. I can assure you, using other people work and selling it isn't up in the air or outdated. If they were to update copyright laws today, you wouldn't all of a sudden be able to use other people's copyrighted works and sell it without permission.
Honestly I would rather have that people quit discussing this, not only because everyone has different believes in this regard, but also heavily stay behind them causing discussions that end up not really being discussions anymore like in the last thread. Nexon is a business with it's headquarters in Japan, where stuff like this is allowed, you'd imagine a business with 234.9 billion JPY revenue a year knows what they're doing.
As long as content isn't made straight from ripped off screenshots of clothing, I don't see the issue whatsoever. As people put actually time and effort into clothing whenever they draw it themselves.
Yes, but if you understand copyright laws, that isn't how that works. It doesn't matter if you put time and effort into something if all you are doing is copying another person's work. That is why copyright exists. So people can't do that. Far more time goes into actually making original works than copying. I can tell you this right now, I can make a Pikachu shirt in a matter of minutes, drawing it from scratch. It's not that hard for someone who is an artist for a living. I don't think there is any piece of clothing I couldn't draw from scratch in minutes. I would say an hour max if I was adding a ton of details.
Edit: Time to copy another's work, hour to two max. Time to create original work, years. Good original works require a lot of theory and practice and that takes years.
Did you forget that bots are a thing? If they made it level 1 or 10 or any other level OTHER than 60 bots would have merets.... we dont want that do we?
Interesting. Very interesting indeed. So if bots can get to level 10, level 20, level 30, level 40 and level 50. What stops them from getting to level 60? How exactly is 60 the definitive number that bots can't get to?
Yeah, trying to be condescending doesn't help your case at all.
Read this line I wrote again "If you have an issue with the way events are structured, aim them towards future events rather than complaining about an event that you were fully knowledgeable on. ".
Just because you thought it was unfair doesn't mean it actually was unfair.
It was certainly fair in that you had the same opportunities as everyone else to hit lv60.
Other people did it, so why didn't you?
Oh, because you didn't want to? Okay, that is what you chose and you knew what the result of it would be.
Other people made the decision to hit cap and get the rewards (people like you who may have wanted to take their time) and that's what they got. All I'm seeing is that you wanted to have the cake and eat it too.
I've deleted the second half of my response because clearly you're looking for an echo chamber. It's hypocritical to expect people to understand why you feel it's unfair (and also really disingenuous to assume the people who disagree with you don't understand why you feel that way) and yet you seem to have no interest in acknowledging that maybe the event was, despite poor design choices, fair.
It's hypocritical to expect people to understand why you feel it's fair (and also really disingenuous to assume the people who disagree with you don't understand why you feel that way) and yet you seem to have no interesting in acknowledging that maybe the event was, despite poor design choices, unfair.
Didn't like how it was run? Go make a thread with constructive feedback and solutions for future events, which can actually be influenced unlike this finished one.
Lets make it clear
Ripping the textures from the game and applying them to a ugc template: No go
Spending the time to personally paint the outfit onto a template while looking at a reference sheet: Good to go.
Copyright laws are a bit more complicated than that. Copying it in any fashion even if by hand is still against copyright. Even if Nexon allows it, that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't against copyright and I think that is a very important distinction to make here. Technically speaking, even fanart is against copyright when looking at it in the most legal sense. The only reason companies don't go after people for drawing fanart is because it would hurt their bottomline. They would only anger their fans for something that isn't really harming them and is even probably benefiting them.
Cosplay, on the other hand, you can get away with it, because there are laws in place that makes it impossible to copyright clothing designs and such because clothing is considered as an essential item for hoomans. XD This however, doesn't always necessarily hold true when it comes to character designs and creating cosplay. There have been some cases where companies have sued, to name one, Disney.
Last but not least, this isn't cosplay anyway. It seems like a lot of people are getting confused. The copyright law that protects clothing doesn't work on digital clothing. Meaning UGC in MapleStory 2, is fully under the same laws of copyright as artwork. Meaning if you are selling designs of characters from another company, it is 100% without a doubt against copyright.
Literally a UA uniform passing the grade from an official channel. I'm iffy of the use of the UA letters however.
But if Nexon says it's ok, it means they will be taking the responsibility. So I guess it doesn't matter.
ON a basic level, most artists take a blank image and create their work from it. Some may trace elements or use the eyedropper tool to properly match colors or structures. Some people may take blatant queues from other artists in their style. / The work involved is the intellectual property/. Ok sure, a tracer might be the scum of the art community, but at the same time, if someone is doing more than just tracing, like say, making a stencil out of a copyrighted image that they then spray on a canvas, that is sufficient removal from the source material to divorce the original copyright.
Sailor moon tiara? She don't own the crescent moon. Just call it the Goddess's Gildpiece and you're fine
You really want Deku cosplay shoes? Red shoes with white soles aren't owned by anyone. Call em Heroic Red Sneakers
The douchebag who makes Sora's shoes and calls them Kingdom Hearts Shoes? A lovely person I'm sure, probably spent a lot of time on them, but at the end of the day guilty of a crime of /using a copyrighted name/.
the purpose and character of your use- A case would need to prove sufficient lack of transformative expression
the nature of the copyrighted work- A Judge would consider the source of the copyright in question in order to determine it's similarities and reasonable expectations toward someone using that work in their own products.
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken - The judge would consider which portion of the work is original and which part is derivative.(Tracing vs handdrawn, and how much of each applies to the original work.)
Trust me when I say this, something being hand drawn isn't going to make a case for copyright any better. Because hand drawing something is still in essence copying. If I had hand drawn a Pikachu poster and was selling it, I absolutely could still be sued and Nintendo would almost certainly win because I do not own the rights to redraw Pikachu and sell it as merchandise. That is what it means to have a copyright on something. Only Nintendo has the right to copy and reproduce it. Now, in order for something to fall under transformative, to give an example ... drawing a realistic Pikachu. As if what it would look like if it was a real animal in real life. I know quite a few artists who do this sort of thing. When you look at these drawings, while you can tell it's meant to be a pokemon, it's extremely different and often even terrifying if I am being honest lol. That is why they can get away with it because it's just so different.
MY official stance is that Nexon won't take any action on part of a copyright holder unless blatant or acted upon by said party. This is because legal fees are a significant portion of the case. The path of least resistance is to ignore the issue until someone complains and then remove the work as instructed... but that is also why the GM's exist in part , to judge the design shop items and act accordingly to takedown requests.
This is pretty much where I agree with you. Personally, I doubt any company is going to come around here and actually try and sue. It's just not worth it in the end. And if someone did happen to try, that is when Nexon would just remove the UGC in violation and move on.
But from what I understand of copyright laws, a lot of stuff in the UGC shop is most certainly against copyright, and so is this outfit. But at the end of the day, it doesn't seem to matter. But people will continue to complain as long as things remain the same. And the bigger an issue theft becomes the more these copyright issues will be pointed out as well. They just sort of go hand in hand. In my opinion, neither should be allowed.
Edit: Also, the whole off topic thing is none sense. It's on topic because it's an important factor in the whole theft and copyright mess that is UGC. And if it was to remain "on topic" then the thread would just die anyway because there is nothing left to discuss and it's not like this thread out of the 100s that probably exist is going to make any sort of difference until they actually do something about it.
Facts are that you were aware that you needed to hit cap to receive these awards. Another fact is that you decided not to grind towards that cap in favor of taking it slow and going at your pace. You clearly valued the latter over the merets and chose to sacrifice the event reward to "enjoy the game".
The only ones I actually sympathize with are the ones who joined maybe a day before the deadline. Twelve days was a hell of a lot of time to hit cap and can easily be done in the span of a day on a fresh character. If you really wanted the 500 merets and other rewards for cap, you would've done it. Clearly that wasn't the case. You knowingly made your decision and then decided to make a thread complaining about how it was unfair? Lol.
Yeah, I have 150 exploration stars, mastery of music, intermediate fishing, and level 5 on all life skills because I don’t play. My initial point still stands, and some of you really need to evaluate the way you talk to people. Not everyone is the same or plays the same. Playing Maple is all I’ve really been doing in my free time lately. I’m just enjoying different aspects of the game. I don’t see why that’s so hard to believe or why people feel the need to insult me.
All you've said this whole thread is that you knowingly play Maple in a way that makes you ineligible of getting the prize within the time frame. You made no effort to change the way you play to get the prize, so you didn't get the prize. You only have yourself to blame.
If you have an issue with the way events are structured, aim them towards future events rather than complaining about an event that you were fully knowledgeable on.
What makes it unfair is you are being told to do something that you don't want to just so you can participate in the celebration that literally has nothing to do with what they are telling you to do. Even though you are also a part of the reason why the celebration event is taking place, yet you don't get to participate cause you play differently.
That's what makes it unfair. My decision to not bother doesn't change that. Why should I have to change the way I play just to be a part of the game? That is literally the unfair part.
I think it's important to understand that something can be unfair even if a person decides to not bother with it. It's so sad these sort of things need to be explained to some people.
Edit: Course fairness is pretty subjective anyway. So why even bother trying to argue with people who don't see it as fair? Not like it's going to get you anywhere.