#obviously they can't do this because of security and theft reasons

[mrtheinsatiable]

I understand why they don't have a tracker on UPS trucks like they do on an Uber, but also my restless ass would love it if they did

[nothorses]

anyways the tipping discourse is still wild to me because like. just. step back from the online theoretical discourse for a minute. take my hand and join me in our practical reality.

when you tip your server, they are paid the amount they were told they would be paid when they accepted the position. they are being paid the amount they rely upon to carry out their basic plans RE: securing food, water, shelter, and other necessities for themselves.

is this a fair wage? probably not! should it be on you, the (also likely underpaid) customer to do this? also no!!

but this is what your choice impacts. if you choose not to tip your server, they do not receive money that they were counting on, and you did that. the people underpaying them also did that, but you made that choice knowing the impact it would have, and you are culpable even if you did not personally design the circumstances you made your decision under.

we talk about the ethics of stealing in the context of big corporations that can afford to be stolen from (and often don't actually lose anything when it happens anyway, because. insurance. and losses they already calculated and planned for), but these are not big corporations with massive untouchable buffers.

these are people, just like you. when you do not tip them, you are stealing directly from them, the person, the individual human who was counting on that money. not the business.

when you don't tip, it doesn't matter the reason; obviously it's not praxis, but I have also seen people argue that you shouldn't have to tip if you can't afford it.

if you can't afford food, you may be justified in stealing from someone who can afford the loss in order to meet that need. but you are not justified in stealing food from someone who is struggling just as hard as you, and you are not justified in deciding whether that individual deserves to eat as much as you do.

it sucks that businesses have placed you and the server in a position where your theft impacts only the individual server you're taking from, but until that changes, you need to fucking tip.

if you can't afford the cost of the meal + tips, you can't afford the meal.

[weemietime]

Let's not devolve into right-wing extremism whilst advocating for basic human rights over here. I see a lot of Jews who are angry at the double standards levied at them from organizations like the United Nations. The UN has a big corruption problem, we all know this.

But we cannot let the perfect get in the way of the good, either. Refusing to have a global international organization like the United Nations as a whole is anti-democratic and illiberal. Whether you advocate for the UN to be replaced by a less corrupted international system or whether you advocate for the UN itself to evolve into this system: we want international cooperation. We want international law.

How the UN is doing things is very flawed, I agree. It accuses Israel of being uniquely and specially evil whilst giving Maduro and Jinping a seat at the table. Nevertheless, we want Palestine to focus on genuine state-building. If they did that, they would improve the lives of their citizens who would be less influenced by radical ideology. If they did that they would have robust social programs aimed at educating their populace and integrating with their neighbors as opposed to fighting them all.

Palestinians having a country of their own is a good thing. Gaza being a country is a good thing. Palestinians being prosperous and peaceful is a good thing. Dissolving the West Bank settlements is understandably a complicated issue, because these settlements do provide insulation in the form of security against terrorism.

But they're illegal for a good reason, because there is an extremely unequal systemic institutional governance there and because the settlers are emboldened by extremists in the government to perpetuate violence, theft and dehumanization. It's obviously strange to see an anarchist advocating for these systems, but I understand the world we live in. I don't claim to be a real, true-blue anarchist. I believe in mutual aid, cooperation, voluntary immigration, and close-knit communities.

I don't believe in policing as it is now. It is possible for us to have loosely-networked communities of people who are provided resources and protection by elected leadership, who still maintain their individual autonomy.

It's not black and white, it's never been black and white. International organization is important, it's how we progress socially and technologically. Land, citizenship is different than a state apparatus, but we can't ignore that right now, state-building and government is a part of international organization.

[kirric-the-fan]

Did I have a weirdly plot sensible lie-in dream with a well executed plot twist on my bingo card for today? No. Am I making notes of it for a possible translate to precure fanfic? Yes.

So, I was like a general dogsbody/security for a sprawling shopping mall, and it turns out they'd been suffering from some thefts lately. And by thefts I mean, things like business secrets, special contracts, vital recipes sort of thing. Not the petty stuff . So the mall was recruiting spy-like special agents to try and find and stop the thefts. These agents included a number of sensible, regularly trained adults, and myself who happened to hear the right thing in the right place at the right time and wanted to pitch in, but it also included a number of the precure girls, including Manatsu, Yui, Nozomi (for some reason), and most of the most recent couple of precure teams.

So various investigations happen. There's a guy with small ears, a bald head, and a pink-check shirt that is under suspicion, but we're not able to prove it. There's a whole distraction of food, competition between the cure girls and the regular spies. And among it all I'm having to do the normal security job, including cordening off a surprise infestation of snakes in an area of the mall near where I was living (including a couple of small ones which kept turning back into lizards when picked up and handled freely). I used heelies to get around the mall a lot and chase leads, but I was allowed because I was an adult and secretly working for the mall.

I also got dragged off (while on the clock) by some of my old friends, including an old boyfriend who got me some food he owed for a long time in a I'll buy you the next one way, so I was stuck in a group of boisterous lads who I had to explain I had changed my name and didn't go by the old one, and there was a moment of "oh god, how are they going to react", but then they were like "that's so cool!" and all high fives and cheering on and pats on the back, which was extremely bro supportive and weirdly relieving.

And I just about escaped from that to get back to work and see how the snake situation is getting on and the call comes through that the thief has struck again. I caught a glimpse of the bald guy and give chase through the city, this time on rollerskates. Some of the other agents are doing the same, but a lot seemed to have different leads to follow and we're almost all split up.

Anyway, I chase down this guy, and as I'm catching him, he starts to go off-road, and I'm having to skate over rocks, proper cross-country technical stuff, down gullys and rock faces some of which I can only navigate safely on my ass. But I just about manage to keep up. Like, there was a lot of that, including a steep, semi-grassy zig-zag bit, and stoney ruins. But we as we caught up with him, nearly looped all the way around, he was gloating, trying to distract us, it seemed. On the way we he had been saying there was a mole in the agency, and that he had already offloaded the information. But as we caught him, the info was gone and we realised it had to be true. The way he kept gloating about the mole, that they were deep within the agency, closer than you suspect, ready to activate whenever they needed them, implied them to be one or more of the cures. So I get back full circle, and the cures are there, and right on cue it looks like Manatsu and Nozomi might be reacting to something, but then it stops, and they are able to transform (proving to not be the moles).

But a wave of ominous darkness comes through from the nearby plaza, classic villain/monster of the week warning signs, and I take a look. I can't see who or what it is, I can just see the Wonderful cures by their coloured ribbon bits standing out in the darkness, and then a voice comes from the darkness, obviously corrupted, obviously not quite themself, but it's also quite obviously Yui, who I suddenly realise hadn't been in the other cure line up I had witnessed on my return.

I kinda woke up at that point, but yeah.

[lunarsilkscreen]

The Homeless for profit Industry

There's several programs in the US. That attempt to get homeless people off the streets into homes, and they routinely claim they find stable *permanent* Housing. But that "permanent" housing lasts about a year. And those who can't recover in that time to a *more permanent* solution are Shit Outta Luck.

I could go into all the predatory lending behavior and identity theft that happens to people who don't have a secure place to keep their necessary "Three forms of ID" required to register vote in this country. (You need the fourth form of id post registration to vote every year as well.)

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The visible shit.

Here's the thing; how long do you think it will take you find a permanent job, near a place to live and vehicle to drive if it isn't near public transit?

Don't say Uber; $40 to be driven to and from work is far to costly.

By permanent, I mean indefinite.

How many people keep their first jobs for more than a year? How many rental agreements last for more than a year?

And how many landlords are *so worried* about being taken advantage of by "squatters" and "renters" rights laws that they refuse to lease a property for longer than a year to somebody?

And, finally; How many landlords prey on the homeless because it means a guaranteed paycheck?

The fact that guaranteed payment plans by the government to pay landlords for a limited period of times means that homeless people wind up homeless and without the ability to save anything they've purchased over that year.

And the proposed solution is "Well, you're supposed to lease with another rental property every year until you die."

That's not permanent housing, especially if renters want you to leave at least bi-yearly. And before you say "why don't you save up your money for a down payment on a home?"

It's not just the down payment, is it? You need house inspections, a real estate agent who will take a % because otherwise you're likely to get screwed in the process.

You could wind up in a predatory home owner association. You could wind up signing a sales agreement with somebody who didn't actually own the property.

There's so many ways to wind up back on the street *even* when everything goes right.

And that's the issue facing people today; but if you've never been worried about losing a stable place to live, it's not something you think about.

Obviously; the main problem with renting, isn't renting. There's plenty of situations in which renting would be preferable. But because of the giant chunk of $$ it takes from your paycheck; it makes it hard to save up any money.

And thus the reason for a loan, which, if I remind you about the housing crisis; doesn't guarantee you can't lose your home when shit hits the fan.

This is why there's economic disparity. Because despite its unethical nature; it's not illegal.

And all of *that* doesn't even cover the increase demand, and thus the increased price of rental properties *caused* by homeless programs themselves. Which feeds into itself.

Because if you don't have permanent housing, and you don't have the ability to achieve permanent rent free housing; you're stuck feeding the system or camping in a van in Public Park or Nature Reserve, and paying for a YMCA membership in order to take showers.

And don't get me started on how expensive laundromats are getting. ($20 for a single load!? Gonna have to throw in an entire month's worth of laundry to break even...)

Right now; the most cost effective method is to get every homeless person a van, with a bed and a closet, a place to park that has a fire pit, a place to do laundry, and a bunch of outhouses.

Then they can all have a roof over their heads, transportation, and Covid Safe Distancing and mask free self-isolation.

Plus; instead of paying money to shitty landlords begging for free guaranteed handouts at others expense; you can create an entire class of mechanics that actually get paid to maintain something.

[davidmariottecomics]

Copyrights and Wrongs, Part 4 (A.I.)

Greetings! 

We come, at last, to the end of our discussion on copyright (for now)! And we're talking about it specifically in relation to "Generative A.I.", a buzzword for copyright theft tools! And, hopefully, if you weren't feeling secure with your understanding of copyright before now, you'll be feeling pretty groovy after this and will be able to submit an informed and thoughtful comment to the Copyright Office's A.I. study, where they are requesting public comment--particularly from those most affected by A.I.--to help determine their future policy on it. 

Where We Are Right Now

Honestly, like most things in the world, it's kind of a mess with a ring of hope. 

First and foremost, remember that all of this is new and at the beginning of legislation, so from a legal standpoint, they're playing catch-up to the technology, which isn't uncommon. It's also happening at a tumultuous time in the U.S. as the country is dealing with the coupling of increased facism (hey, fuck KOSA) and unyielding capitalism. It's almost like those things are all related in some way... 

The Copyright Office has started fielding submissions of A.I. generated material, and so far their general policy seems to revolve around a matter of substantial contribution. So, obviously, there was that really terrible comic that made the rounds a while back, and that I alluded to last week, that was one of the first big test cases. It was fully "illustrated" (stolen) by A.I. with original text written by the "creator" and submitted to the copyright office. Initially, it was registered, then modified as the A.I. component became clear, and ultimately the copyright was registered for the original text, but not granted for the visual component.

But, my understanding is that there have been works that use a similar enough model or technology or "A.I." that have been easily registered with the copyright office because the amount of technological contribution was minor. For example, if a similar tool was used to intuitively do color flatting, but the final color rendering--all the final tones, effects, shading, etc--was all done by the artist, that wouldn't pop. Or if an artist created 95% of a work and fed their own piece into an engine that then finalized that last 5%, that might not pop. And I think the essential difference, that they're currently recognizing, is the distinction between a human being putting in their own work to create something that is copyrightable and using "A.I." as a tool in the process of creation and a tool being left to fully create the "new" work. 

Meanwhile, a number of lawsuits have been filed and are in various stages of processes, which is where the frontlines of the battle are being fought. A lot of the claims are being brought specifically on the basis of copyright violation (and a few cases of trademark violation). For probably pretty clear reasons, creatives of all sorts are saying "hey, fuck this noise, you took my work without permission and your robot is allowing people to inherently copy it for their own benefit, without payment or attribution." 

The complication--and the reason why we need clearer directives put forth from the Copyright Office, as well as some legal wins to better define case law around this--is that the A.I. developers are basically claiming that:

1. They don't actually have the data. Either the way their system functions, they don't actually keep it on hand, they just let the program go wild online or through whatever they at one point used to train it and they don't know how exactly it chooses what it does, but it just goes and makes something and there's so much information in these systems that you wouldn't actually be able to prove whether it used your thing or not.

2. Along those same lines, since they have so much data, if you can't definitively prove that your work was taken, that you suffered damages, your lawsuit should just be dismissed. Doesn't matter if your work turns up in Book3 and was probably torrented to get there (which... if we could prove that would actually get most of this stuff thrown out as violation because the FBI says you wouldn't steal a car! Nah, but, really, if we could prove that the way the works were obtained to fuel the datasets was illegal, that'd be a huge boon to these cases), if you can't prove that your work has specifically been violated because, well, they have 183000 other books it could've stolen from, the case doesn't have clear standing and should be dismissed.  

3. That they are not inherently responsible for how their technology is used by consumers. Basically, your work being in their dataset does not cause harm by itself and any damages that may result from your work being in the set are actually the responsiblity of the person who, say, used "A.I." to write like a Sparknotes-esque summary version of your book. The company didn't ask the program to write that, the user did, and if the user then sold it, the responsiblity rests with them. 

4. That it's fair use. Basically, as long as they're using publicly available data, or data submitted by the users with the *understanding* that they are knowingly submitting their own material, the resulting generation is a transformative work. We're going to put a pin in this one and come back to it. 

Current Caselaw

Naruto v. Slater et al is a particularly bizarre case that has a lot of weight in this fight at the moment. It's a really wild little story about a nature photographer who went out to take photos. He stepped away from one of his cameras for a minute and a crested macaque named Naruto picked it up and took some selfies! The photographer printed them in a book of his and said "look at these monkey selfies!" PETA said "Hold on! That monkey deserves restitution! He took those selfies and holds that copyright, not you, hoo-man!" And so they sued on behalf of Naruto. And the judge said "Well, no. I'm not giving a monkey copyright. He's a monkey and copyright is something that goes to works with human authorship." Following this case, the Copyright Office issued directives claiming "only works created by a human can be copyrighted under United States law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention" and specifically lists "a photography taken by a monkey" as something that doesn't count. Now, whether Slater, the guy who owned the camera, actually owns the copyright on Naruto's selfie is a little... ambiguous. The court's dismissal of the case definitively says Naruto doesn't own it, but it doesn't specifically say Slater actually gets to maintain it or if the image just doesn't have copyright. 

But I bring all of this up because, again, this is the standard that the Copyright Office currently follows. They're looking for human intervention and they're looking for substantial contribution. 

Author's Guild v. Google, Inc also comes up a lot, particularly in the fair use defense. And it's one that's... tricky. Basically, you know how you can look up a book on Google and often there's a little thing on the side of the screen that lets you read the first like 20-ish pages (I looked up House of Leaves for an example, and they'll let you preview 77/738 pages). Well, authors said "they're copying our books without permission, that's a violation of copyright." And Google and the courts said "no, it's transformative. They aren't doing it in competition with the books, they're creating a new way of access that refers back to the original work in market purposes, not a supplanting version of it." And this is the exact sort of precident that makes these current proceedings really legally rough. Like, it is understood and appreciated as a function of Google (well... old Google, not post-"A.I." Google...) that it is a search engine and that for it to work, it needs to be able to conduct searches based on the information it's given and be able to post results for ya. And that means taking what's publically available to it to search, which often includes copyrighted material. Now, the exact nature of how they "transform" copyrighted material into more easily searchable material is something that gives me pause--I do feel like there should be more of an opting-in from the copyright holders--but I can see how the court came to the conclusion it did. 

The bigger issue is, of course, that this is one of the big cases that "A.I." developers are using as justification of fair use. The data sets they're using are essentially acting like Google--searching through existing material like a search engine--but with a new result at the end which is transformational of the original information. There are a couple of differences here that I think disclude that premise, but again, pin in that for a second. 

Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. is a really interesting one in this whole discussion too. This case was about a telephone book. Short version: both Feist and Rural made telephone books. Feist covered a larger area than Rural. Feist ldecided to print a phonebook with a dozen areas all in one. They contracted with 11 of them, but Rural held out, so Feist just copied the names and numbers and printed them anyway. Rural said "that's infringement" and the courts said "no, they're just printing facts. There's no significant creative authorship to the phonebook, and a set of factual data can't be copyrighted." This one's important on two fronts. First, it's one of the major cases that begins the definition of threshold of originality. Basically, there needs to be some actual creative thinking involved in making a copyrightable work, but it requires actually trying to inject thought into the result and make it distinct from existing works, not just having done the effort of work. That is to say, sure, it took time and work to originally compile the phonebook, but it is organized alphabetically and just a set of facts and was not arranged in an artistic manner. Second, and something that I think will be interesting going forward, it set that the U.S. doesn't recognize database rights. I will be very interested to see if, say, once competition starts stealing the datasets from some of these bigger A.I. developers, they'll suddenly worry about their own copyright--which actually doesn't exist for those datasets. 

And the last case for right now that I'll mention is Twentieth Century Music Corp v. Aiken. This was a particularly wonky case. A restaurant owner was sued for having the radio on for his customers, under the basis that the radio station had the right to broacast songs and that was fine and good, but the restauranteur did not have the same broadcasting rights within his establishment. And this was a major copyright case. Ultimately, the court decided that, no, having a radio (or TV or whatever) on in an establishment did not inherently violate copyright because it is not a performance of that work. But the really important thing in this case is it definied again the goals of copyright. Copyright exists at the intersection of the authors, the disseminators, and the users. The rulings describe copyright's purpose “to secure a fair return for an ‘author’s’ creative labor'” and “to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." And I'd contend, as so many other people are doing right now, that generative A.I. is not securing a fair return for author's creative labor, nor stimulating artistic creativity for the general pubic good. It is engaging with existing, copyrighted material outside of fair use and without return for the original author, and supplanting creativity--both in discouraging existing authors and in flooding the markets with creatively bankrupt material. As Gallup reports, 3 out of 4 Americans believe that A.I. is going to reduce jobs and 80% of Americans do not trust that companies will use A.I. responsibly. 

Transformative Use

Okay, here we are. I've said so much about all of this, but here's the crux of my arguement, at least. The standard for copyright is that to qualify for copyright, materials must meet certain standards of originality, creativity, and fixation. The products of A.I. (and "products" is used particularly pointedly here) certainly qualify for fixation. They can be seen and in some form exist, much as I may personally hate it. But I don't believe they meet the standards of originality and creativity. 

A comparison I have frequently made is that of a blender. You can write a grocery list and by most standards, that's going to fall under the same idea as a dataset. Now, in one version, you can use your expertise to buy your own groceries and combine them to make a meal--taking the time, effort, skill, and your existing or gained in the moment knowledge to create something nourishing. Maybe it goes wrong and you burn something, or maybe you forget a key ingredient, or maybe you decide to experiment and the result is less than appetizing, but it's all a result of your thought and efforts. Now, if that's how you're approaching any sort of creative work--art, writing, music, film, etc--that should qualify for copyright. What "generative A.I." is doing is being fed a grocery list, *somehow* obtaining the items on the list, but in a vague way where they may or may not be the correct items on the list, they may or may not include more or fewer items than on the list, and the legality of how they were brought to you is unclear, and putting them all in a blender. Yes, you get a sludgey smoothie at the end of it, and the smoothies may be distinct in what they put out, but they lack the skill, refinement, and knowledge of even an amateur chef working with the ingredients. They just regurgitate what they're fed, and if you just add a pinch of salt at the end, that's not really doing anything.  

But this only applies to why works created by A.I. shouldn't be copyrightable. The other crucial part is whether they're violating copyright. So much of the defense of fair use relies on the transformative standard. Is the original material being infringed upon? In the first place, let's just say that, as long as we're talking about "A.I. works" as commercial enterprises, most of them are not going to fall under fair use under the standards of parody, satire, or commentary. When we see something like that bad Batman comic I mentioned last time, or the bad "A.I. illustrated" comic I mentioned earlier, those are clearly meant to be taken seriously as new, original works. They aren't commenting on or engaging with existing copyrighted work as a way of making a point. They're seeking to create a new work with existing elements, but particularly in the case of that terrible Batman comic, without a real understanding of the work they're engaging with. The artistic styles are all over the place specifically because the "creator" couldn't be bothered to know whose work he was taking from--and, I'd contend, if he was specifically attempting to copy the works of specific artists in an attempt to replace their work, that also would not fall under fair use standards.

Additionally, to the argument that the developers are making, they say that their databases are so full of information that you can't *really* tell what the original works were, and in that way, they are not a repurposement for the identification of the original work. Which, again, to that bad Batman comic, I think is a really damning defense. I, and many other people in my industry, were able to clearly and recognizably point out what authors and works were being taken from--no, maybe not every work that was being used, but enough that it would generally be considered plagiarism. The products created are meant to be in competition to, not additive to, the original works without acknowledgement of the works that they are taking from.

Judge Pierre Leval has described it as "Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses." These aren't critiques. They don't expose the character of the original author, provide facts, summarize anything other than the exact work itself, or parody. And they don't make aesthetic declarations, they take and recycle others aesthetic accomplishments. The whole issue is that they claim they're making something new, something different, something worthwhile from whatever data they may have within the system, but the system is a tool. It doesn't have the human recognition to actually synthesize the material and make a transformative work. It just regurgitates what it's fed. 

Final Bits, I Swear

Apparently you can opt-out of Dall-E now, but the process is arduous. So much of what these folks are relying on is making their processes so difficult, people don't engage with them when there is an option to opt-out, and such misinformation and obfuscation on how things are created that it's difficult to identify when your work may be used, and for the public to understand how the work is being harvested. 

I'm supremely frustrated with companies like Disney who keep using "generated A.I." in their promotional materials. I'm also disappointed in shows like Last Week Tonight where John Oliver and crew shared a bunch of A.I. generated Johns that had been posted to Reddit. Like, Disney's a company that has literally changed copyright law in the U.S. to suit their purposes. John Oliver's only now back because the writer's strike is over, where the writer's won protections of their jobs against A.I. Like... the hypocrisy is astounding and disappointing that they cannot square their own desire for copyright protection with protecting others. 

You may've seen the recent A.I. manga lettering debacle (hey guess what, it was bad!). Here's an interesting little conversation with some actual letterers about it. 

Finally... yeah, I do actually think there are uses of A.I. as a tool that are fine. And most of that comes down to being a person who inputs your own data. I think about how Pixar has a "character generator" that works on these same principles, where they drew a bunch of base features and fed them into a system and the system helps them animate by populating backgrounds with characters who have random combinations of those features. But, that works off of stuff that the Pixar animators put in. Or, again, fairly similarly, I know meteorlogists have talked about how this sort of system can be really helpful in taking the data they've recorded and helping them predict upcoming weather patterns. But these are so vastly different from how bullshit like ChatGPT or Dall-E or any of these other scam machines are being operated and I just wish people could understand that. 

I think that's it for this week! Don't forget to submit your own comments on the Copyright Office's study and also to say fuck KOSA to your senator! 

What I enjoyed this week: Blank Check (Podcast), Craig of the Creek (Cartoon), One Piece (Manga), Pokemon Violet (Video game), The Archive Undying by Emma Mieko Candon (Book), Sex Education (TV show), Only Murders in the Building (TV show), Yu-Gi-Oh: Duel Links (Video game), Wipeout (TV show), Whisper of the Heart (Movie), Josee, the Tiger and the Fish (Movie) 

New Releases this week (10/4/2023): No new books from me this week.

Final Order Cut-Off next week (10/9/2023): Godzilla Rivals: vs. Mechagodzilla (Editor) Sonic the Hedgehog: The IDW Comic Art Collection (Editor)

New Releases next week (10/11/2023): Sonic the Hedgehog #65 (Editor) Sonic the Hedgehog Halloween Special (Editor) Sonic the Hedgehog: Seasons of Chaos TPB (Editor) 

Announcements: I'm still doing a member drive over on my Patreon! You can read about it in a public post there! If you join, renew, or updated to the Feature Fan ($10) tier or above, you're going to get a Mystery Comic Grab bag! And as a patron, you're going to have a bit more choice on what all it is! All the info is on there, so if you're curious, please do give it a look! And it'll be going through all October!

If the Patreon isn't your cup of tea at this time, or you wanna do more of a one-time donation, from Oct 3rd to the 18th, so right now, I have 2-3 comic Mystery Bundles in my Ko-Fi store! Same premise as the Patreon--there'll be a bundle for grown ups and one for kids. They're pay what you want with a $15 minimum. If you send $25 or over, I'll ship you a trade paperback too!

It will be US only on both the Patreon and Ko-Fi just because shipping internationally's very expensive right now. But, for international folks, I will put together a nice little digital goods bundle for ya!

Wanna support me otherwise? I'm on Ebay, there's my webstore, or you can support Becca through their channels! Good news: We don't need a new laptop! But your support is still appreciated because we, like so many other folks right now and I get it, are kinda struggling. 

Pic of the Week: OOO, been a while since we've done one of these! The pic of the week is Becca's Rouge the Bat, over on Bsky! And big ups to Michelle Perez for encouraging everyone to do more Rouges. But the one I'm posting is the promo for my membership drive/Ko-Fi sale! Y'know how I'm always talking about advantages of the Patreon? They've got a different pic of the week! 

[brazenautomaton]

What do you think of Nintendo ruining Gary Bowser's life in order to send a message to hacker groups and pirates about respecting copyrights? I have some thoughts about it, but I feel you're among the few people who could an even-handed response on the matter.

I am very against it

like you can talk about what piracy laws should be and if we need any at all, but that's immaterial here, because obviously we HAVE piracy laws and that is the framework we're in here

iff there are piracy laws that treat it as a form of theft, it should be recognized as a lesser form of theft, but again, whatever. there are reasons, good reasons, that theft is a crime with a jail sentence and not just about renumerating the victim for the shit they had stolen

which is to say, I am against these things being the law the way they are but that part is not Nintendo's fault and irrelevant to judging Nintendo's actions. even if we think there should not be piracy laws, or piracy laws should be greatly scaled back, you'd still be pretty childish to expect and demand companies to just say they won't take advantage of those laws to (according to their incorrect perception) protect their interests.

the part that IS Nintendo's fault is when you prosecute someone and seek a heavy penalty in order to "send a message"

and you know you want to "send a message" because the criminal activity is fucking ubiquitous and you're not getting barely any of them and the ubiquity of this criminal activity kind of proves "well it can't actually be that damaging can it"

you're ruining someone's life in order to prove something that you know isn't true and everyone else knows isn't true

you are not going to put forth the effort to crack down on this in the future because you know it would be a total waste of time and effort. this isn't a warning of what is coming, this is an obviously empty threat and you fucked up a dude's life in order to send an obviously empty threat. you're not dissuading shit, you're just making people mad and fucking with a dude to accomplish nothing.

and that makes you a shit.

hopefully Bowser's life isn't actually ruined, though. he is losing three years of his life, but since he's going to go to minimum security prison, it's only those three years he's losing. he's not going to be thrown into a rape factory that will destroy him as a person, it's going to be three years of annoying bullshit and then when it's done he'll be a hacker who went to prison for hacking things and I think that's probably good for your cred and hopefully lets him bounce back.