Re: Cursed Armor 1.40 wolfzq thread missing?
if he using art from another game. did he have permission to sale that said work. cursed armor is a paid patron. that is the issue. the other issue is making money off of someone else work that was intended to remain free. see why there is a problem here. he selling free resources. am i only one here that got a problem with that?
Don't mean any offense by this, but since you asked, I'll share my opinion on why I disagree with yours.
Here's my problem with your thought process as I see it. You seem to have very clear cut definitions of what is good and what is not. And the way you handle nuances is to ignore them or bundle them together with one side or the other of your scale.
This is evident in many of your sentences, where you use an alleged or implied statement as fact. The highlighted example in the quote is one such case, you bundled a bunch of ideas that fit your logic to come to a conclusion that makes sense only within the confines of it's own specific rules, and is easily torn apart just by thinking about it in a broader sense.
You say he's selling free resources, and you make it an act that is definitely not good, thus deserving of punishment. But in a world that is not defined by clear cut strokes, and logic is only a tool to achieve a goal, here's a few different points of view. The free resources contained in his work are not the entirety of his work if you simply identify them in what was taken from RoL, in fact they are a minor part of the complete product, as any game maker should be able to confirm, compared to crafting the maps, scripting events, writing dialogues, and polishing required to ensure everything works as intended. Making the whole transformative, thus not illegal(he does credit the original creator too), and more than barely a dick move, that is not worthy of capital punishment. You can imply that having "stolen" a "free" product makes it so we can't be 100% sure that his entire product is not stolen, and I won't sound less ridiculous when I imply that we can't be 100% sure that you are not a corporate AI trying to destroy an indie creator.
Let's keep broadening our view.
Who the fuck in this industry is not using someone else's work for free?
There are a shitload of freewares that are being used to make money, people on youtube using free versions of editing programs to make money, they didn't make it, they shouldn't be allowed to profit by it, following your specifications. And how can we be 100% sure that nobody is using a pirated version in a world where proof can be easily counterfeit.
Even broader.
Who the hell in human society is not profiting from the work of those that came before, it's called progress, it's the reason we have all this shit. By your reasoning of not being able to profit from something that was intended to be released for free, no artist in the world should be allowed to sell their stuff, because a fucking caveman invented the concept of drawing, and since that caveman did not intend for others to pay for it, nobody should be allowed to make money.
And this is just one example out of many.
The more I observe and pick apart your statement, the more I realize that what makes sense to you, only strictly works in a specific sequence and from a specific point of view, and falls apart completely when those specs are not met. Which leads me to believe that you are working backwards from your objective to craft a series of logical arguments that support it, without doing a good job of it. And I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that you are most likely not doing it on purpose, but it's just a mix of not putting much effort into it and lack of self-reflection. And that's mainly the reason I find it hard to agree with your opinion on this subject.
Believe it or not I actually hope this is helpful to you. Even just as pointers to up your game.
All things said and done, everyone here is just speculating. If the original creator wanted to pursue legal actions there would be a lawsuit in place. No lawsuit means there's no hostile "intent" from the original creator. And anyone here, that is not a veteran CIA agent with multiple degrees in psychology and behavior studies, and has met the original creator in person and interrogated him for a couple days, and wants to tell me they managed to obtain a fairly accurate "guess" of what the original creator intends to do about this, I'm open to discussion.
tl;dr No legal action = No legal issue.
