Freebasing adderall. Adderall.

Exactly! That pretty much sunk the cred points for the accused here. I am all for free enterprise but originality will see that a business is respected.

I know what you mean about Seller’s Guild, which is what initially induced me into going to see for myself. Even if the rip off artist had done it, but I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes, I would never have wrote the story. As it were, I saw the ban list myself and talked with the designers after seeing some of what I owned and what was on the wall.

Unfortunately, I worked for 4 hours and in that time, the list was cleared, the designs I knew for sure myself were gone and there was barely proof of burden, but alas a buddy of mine had sent that pic of the hair to me so at least there was something to go on.

The icing to write the story for me came from the ban list itself. Why in the hell do you ‘preemptively’ ban the most common names in designs if you have nothing to hide?

And no, this isn’t newsworthy – what caught my attention was the slew of comments showing off just how much of a whiner a builder can be.

“”"Now had this been a blatant, direct copy with no differences whatsoever – aside from texture – and the user banned for it …. then it’d be news worthy and not just another bit of sensationalist drivel.”"”

Grabbed your attention didn’t it?

The shock isn’t so much the fact that it was done (we all know it happens), but it was done from a large set of some of the most popular designers, who were all banned, and who tried to get something done and were told ‘oh well’.

Alas, you don’t deem what is newsworthy. Many people found me to tell me they were glad I put the avatar’s name out there. Newsworthy to you isn’t what is to others. Anything where information is shared with people who might not know in the first place is newsworthy to me, even if I don’t like the idea personally.

Now had this been a blatant, direct copy with no differences whatsoever – aside from texture – and the user banned for it …. then it’d be news worthy and not just another bit of sensationalist drivel.

Something else to add incidentally – while it may not be ok to copy prim objects – direct copy mind you – people are still going to make their own versions, possibly with more than just a few differences (if they’re talented), just as coders already HAVE to do when making their own version of a function that has been done to death. The difference between the two groups? Most coders will see the variant, test it out, then contact the maker to give them credit and congrats for making a better working copy (if it works better that is). A Builder will whine and complain if someone makes an object that is far too similar to their own – no matter how many (even very few) differences there are between the two.

On the face of it – neither one is ok to do: However that is how some “original” builds occur: a variant of a copied object (usually done manually) that came about as a ‘mistake’ during the copy process. I don’t know how these hair copies were made … But I do know that instead of complaining about them the makers could have had them taken down until such a time as they were modified to be variants.

What’s your point? That because two things end up doing the same thing, then it’s okay to copy someone’s work?

For a coder it’s easy enough to copy a function – if they really wanted to. They do not have to see the code to do it either, they just need the end result and a little time to figure out how to do it. The end result is often the same – perhaps a smoother animation or less lag due to differences in the code … but the same function.

So then, there really isn’t any difference between copying a script function …. and copying a prim object … really aren’t so grand after all are they?

/insert dramatic voice

But the apologists swear ANYONE can make stuff in photoshop and all it takes is 5 minutes to create an outfit!!! It takes the designers no time at all and therefore should be free to copy!!!

/drama voice off