Proof of a design ripper.. also looking for some advice

There's simply not JUST one single way to build an F-16, and the chances of two people building one the exact same way ARE utterly nil. If two people set out to build one, with no contact with each other whatsoever, *guaranteed* the prim combinations would be quite visually different.

This is a rip.

People suck. x_x

its quite surprising someone doesn't actually stop and communicate and instead act like an elitist jerk

and you guys are positive, given the relation that they will build it around thes same shape?

look, im not much of a follower, i try really really hard to be one.. but it hardly ever works out well
i make my own opnions and yes those around me will influnece those.. but i like to make an informed one.. and will not jump on the band wagon of others.. sorry but im not a friggin cookie cutter program -.-

Thing is, Volatile, he *did* communicate with us clearly on his very first post. And you *did* actually entirely miss his point, whether willfully or because of unfamiliarity with how building works in-world.

THESE DAMN FORUMS. Maybe it IS good that LL will be nuking them. Eesh.

100%

uhmm.. i would go with unfamiliarity of how building works..
i tend to be a complete jerk if i am doing it willfully

hmm.. i just think the possiblities aren't as high as you guys think.. :/
could you at least try it yourself? and tell me to stfu that you proved that you built yours and it was compeltley different than the guy and it was even a more logical build?

Actually, given the physical object prim count limitation and the complexity of an F-16's fuselage forcing a great deal of "creative interpritation" by anyone wanting top re-crate one in SL, it is unlikely that two people would come up with the same combination, never mind so exactly. Dustin's right, that is a copy of his build.

But the fact is, the textures suck, and I very much doubt the scripting meets Dustin's standards. If the copycat manages to sell any, the buyers will all no doubt have a nasty case of buyer's remorse not long after.

Somone copying a build is little more than annoyance. It's when they can manage the whole object - prims, textures and scripts - that it becomes something worth worrying about. So in this case, I think Dustin can safely ignore the dingleberry.

Absolutely positive it's a copy.

Did you really look at the screenshots posted? Ok, the hollowed/cut cylinder in the cockpit is a pretty basic shape. But you expect someone else to independently come up with the exact same degree of cut/hollowing? AND the fuelage? AND the angle of interpenetration on the cockpit? AND not only the same size nosecone, but so precisely copied that it even gets the 'roundness' errors identical? Impossible.

Yes, the copy is ugly and probably doesn't function as well, but it'll still hurt sales to have ripoffs floating around. Unless he can keep a fully-rezzed floor model, it's hard to tell the difference, and after wasting money on junk the buyers may not want to risk a second round.

i dont' know enough about building at all it seems.. :/

kk the guys is a ripper, want me to shot him?

The wheels are attached differently along with the air speed indicators.

Though I have to agree, they are a little to close for comfort with positions and rotations of the prims. I like the textured one better.

I like to rip objects apart to see how they were built. I like to see practice on replicating a prim in order to learn more about building.

But to rip apart an object in order to replicate it and sell it as one's own is just wrong. Sorry to hear that there isn't a lot to be done about it. The OP has my sympathy.

I build my own objects.
I know I would not be able to make an exact replica of anyone else's work without using the same sized prims as the original creator. Even a slight difference in numbers would have the end result of such a detailed project looking different enough to know they aren't the same object.
All I can say is, good thing that hack didn't rip your textures as well...

I agree to an extent that it is a rip off but then again alot of stuff in SL is repeat builds. Helicopter designs, plane designs, lots of objects in SL are copied builds. IP rights are tricky as they relate to the idea. Sadly anyone can recreate an object in SL and it's perfect ok for them to do it as long as they arnt copying scripts and textures exactly to well according to the actual rules anyways. Its unetthical yeah i agree but i myself have done so although i changed around stuff a bit after making the copy and then added to it although i dont even sell the product it was for a personal preference that the original just wasnt meeting. I did it by eye not actual numbers. But if they change something around when building how much of an issue is it to people?

I do this but i change things and if its done in this manner it doesnt go up for sale. Just some products i buy i end up not liking most of which are just attachments nothing scripted.

Here's an analogy that might clear it up a bit for you.


You want to build a castle (of which you have a picture) out of Lego, and you have limited shapes and sizes of pieces. You spend hours on it, and finally get it looking like the one in the photo. You had to be really creative with some of the positions of the blocks in order for it to look the best, and it took a lot of thought and hard work. When you're done, you stand back and admire your work - it's unique, totally yours, and you are proud of it.

Someone comes along, looks at how you laid out the blocks, thinks "ohhh, so THAT is how she did it". The person duplicates your efforts, and tells others that the work is his own.

How would you feel?

You seem to be referring to two separate issues. One being bringing real world designs/objects into Second Life. The other being making a by-the-numbers prim-for-prim copy of an in-world item.

On the issue of bringing real-world items into SL, I have mixed feelings and it's hard to find specific and quantifiable reasons why it's right or wrong. In this particular case, I really couldn't care less that someone made an F-16 in SL even though it's "ripping off" somebody's IP.

On the issue of the prim-for-prim copying, it seems pretty clear to me that this is wrong. Exceptions would be if you have the original creator's consent or if you did it just to learn building techniques and not to sell/give away copies.

You raised the question of copying but changing someone else's work. That's a good question. And again, it's hard for me to come up with specific/quantifiable rule for what's ok and what's not. I guess it depends on things like (not all inclusive!) the nature and extent of the changes, the overall complexity of the object, and the originality of the object. Perhaps somewhat on whether or not you give credit to the original. I think it's ok to be inspired by someone else's work. I don't think you can claim IP rights for a window which is just a box 2x2x0.05, untextured, and semi-transparent.

Getting back to the case of the OP, this is obviously a by-the-numbers prim-for-prim copy. And that's not right even if the textures are different.

Why anyone would want to defend anyone who copies another's work is beyond me.

I'm not saying it's illegal or unlawful. My point is why even waste your time defending this unethical behavior? Unless of course you yourself are engaging or planning to engage in this behavior, or support a friend or family who does so.

Why not show support and a little sympathy for someone who's long hard work has just been ripped-off by some bottomfeeder in a span of a few minutes?

I guess it's ok to do defend the bottomfeeder until it happens to you.

Only then will you understand.

Ouch, that sucks man. Just one of my many reasons for taking a break from SL for some RL projects. Unfortunatly nothing can be really done about it other than knowing that it is better cause you rawk at textures and main design. And I agree with Jillian, I know that the main flight scripts would have to live up to Dustin's standards (which are very high) as I worked with him when I wrote them, and during this I worked closely with Dustin and a few others on features that they wanted to see in them (float capability for float planes, water crash events for planes that aren't supposed to float, low speed ground taxi and even the prop staging for prop rpm settings (for prop based aircraft mind you) with co-ordinated staging for the sounds, still a lot more to add -wait till the vector based impact events, realistic stalling conditions and landings without gear deployment are added ). I think I have even seen that copy-cat ( I could be wrong, IM me inworld Dustin and I will check my sources next time I am online), and I could swear it had that "stolen" mouselook script in it too (which baffles me as Cubey's free DIY script would be a better fit for this).... So in that regard I feel bad for those who paid for it especially at 150L more....

First, to be honest, the F16 is a military design. So you "lend"or "borrowed" it I assume. Will you paying a fee for it's usage to the original designers? Guess not.

Second, if I were to buy /have a need for a F16, which one would I buy?

- black or grey one? grey one since its the original F16 color
- black or grey one? grey one because it looks better
- black or grey one? grey one because it's cheaper but looks much more expensive then the black one

So what's the problem again?

Edited to add:
Can it also be that certain items DO look alike? Like the flightscreen? I've seen it on a lot of planes, not just F16...
/shrugs

Actually, all US Government equipment is free of copyright as the US taxpayer pays for it. The citizens own it, they can make models or copies if they wish.

I don't know if this applies for other governments.

Vol, it's down to experience with the tools, one look at those images tells me that's a copy, no need to try it. It's not about the design of an F-16, it's about how the prims were used to construct that F-16. If I was to build that same plane from a picture, I would come up with an entirely different solution. We all kinda have our own little tricks, and ways of doing things.

To the OP: take comfort in the fact that your plane looks a whole lot better, and you came up with a good solution by yourself. What else can you do?

Honestly, they do not look identical to me.

Edit: ok after a closer look they are similiar but yours looks much better.

Check out the prim outlines

hehe I also came across another one of my ripped models at his shop.. and this time it is a fictional model that I just made up.

Thanks for the help everyone, I appreciate it

fly dustins ; then fly the rippoffers you will see rite away dustis is far soperior over the other guys.



Drake Hare