Texture Ripping to Fix Bad Clothes

I understand your concerns, Chip, although in a way, the point is moot. LL doesn't or simply cannot lock down textures. And for every person who just thinks about doing something like fixing a texture they bought, there will be dozens who steal those they haven't for nefarious purposes. At this point, demanding that people abide by some rules doesn't make much of a difference. I've yet to see a single instance of a person punished by LL for theft and resale of textures, even with plenty of evidence, but they will come down on residents for using any "corporate" logo for nothing but personal use, even those of dubious merit. (like the Church of Satan). So, I guess my point is, if someone even bothers to ask, they aren't the folks you need to worry about, since no one has to ask to begin with and they aren't even punished if caught.

That really does fall apart the moment you consider tools being used have been specifically blessed by LL, not only blessed, but blessed up on a podium for five minutes discussing what good work is being done with these tools at SLCC '06. So tell me again who isn't supposed to be doing something? If you're confused about this, perhaps you should watch the presentation Cory did since I assure you it's certainly there and it's spelled out that reverse engineering the client and the protocol is condoned, this includes receiving assets as they are streamed as part of function.

Just because someone could do something illegal doesn't mean it needs to be made 'more illegal' and people have their rights restricted just because you feel it should be. If someone steals your shit and sells it, drag them to court. If someone is handing it out for free and you catch them, DMCA takedown and drag them to court if you feel up for it. I totally support that 100% and I would not for an instant say otherwise. I have never once ripped off a single fucking person in this game and I take offense to your accusations that my morals are fast and loose when you make such sweeping generalizations. I bet you'll also assume I don't spend hours producing work and I've never had my shit stolen and sold, which you'd also be wrong about. However, I'd rather deal with the individuals responsible instead of wish for everyone to be punished.

That being said, If I've paid money for something and I mod it for my own personal use, you really have no leg to stand on and I will defend my rights as a consumer tooth and nail against anyone who feels their rights continue beyond where my own begin.

I've filed a successful DMCA notice, had my IP removed from the offending location AND wound up befriending the person whom I filed the DMCA notice against because it was obvious to both of us they had unknowingly based thier skin design off of supposedly "free to use" content which was NOT free to use. It was mine! I was even offered restitution and a lot of other evidence pointing to other individuals violating my IP rights because the other skin designer took pride in thier own ability and reputation as an artist. Obvoiusly, I'm not going to mention names unless they want to come forward themselves.

Was this done with LL's assistance or was it worked out between the two of you?

It was done with LL's assistance.

Well, that is good to hear, and honestly, the first time I've heard of it.

Since people are ignoring my post, let me distill it to one concise example:

If you have ever ripped a song to make an mp3 for your own use and are now complaining about people ripping textures for their own use, then you are a hypocrite.

Perhaps you may have noticed the link to my radio station in my sig. It's a fully legal Live365 station that pays royalties on every song I play. As someone who makes their entire living as an artist you'd better believe that IP rights are something I take very seriously.



The tool in question has some valid and benign uses. Ripping textures you have no right to rip isn't one of them. If you don't like the quality of something you purchased from an SL content creator and they refuse to refund you or fix it then don't buy from them again. It's that simple.

If you sell a product with a script in it that you worked long and hard on and purposely distributed it with the permissions locked down, would you use the same argument to defend me if I, through use of a hack, got in to the source anyway? After all I only want to make a slight modification for my own use. I'm guessing you'd prefer that I ask you and if you're unwilling to modify it or give me the source you'd want me to respect that. If you distribute your wares as open source, good for you. I don't, as is my right.

So can you honestly say that you have never ripped a song to WAV/MP3/OGG/etcetera for personal use before?

That's different because he says it's different, I'm sure. He instead tries to discuss distribution via Live365 instead of fair use. Somehow fair use is being distorted as distribution and copyright infringement and things are 'that simple' because it's self-evident to him and he wants it to be that way.

Oh, and apparently I'm a scripter here, which is news to me.

Where is this license? I've never been given a license agreement with any clothing I've bought. (Though I have been given such an agreement with some textures and some copyable pose balls.)

In the absence of a explicit license agreement to the contrary, a sale is a sale; not a license.

Why would anyone object to someone making fair use modifications to their legally purchased copy of an item? If you have a problem with redistribution of hacked copies, then no one is going to argue with you.

I also think your arguement that this falls under the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA to be weak. The DMCA defines circumvention of copy protection as "to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." Since the "ripped" content is sent to your computer from SL unencrypted, I'm not at all sure this definition would cover SL clothing or textures.

A court might hold that to be circumvention, but it is in no way the obvious reading of the law.

Just a suggestion.
Maybe you could invite the creator of the items you wish to purchase to come and show them on themselves?
Then you will know what they reallylook like?

Dear Dillon Morenz,

If its really THIS important to you, I give you my blessing to rip that shirt that you say is unwearable (which no one else has had a problem with before) and spend the time to fix it in photoshop. I hope that you alone will create the most perfect shirt i've ever made in SL, just dont give it out. Good luck buddy.

Your friendly imperfect clothing designer,
nylon pinkney

As far as I know under the DMCA you are still allowed to make a single copy of a sound recording for personal use. What that has to do with texture based content in SL is quite beyond me. You're comparing apples to oranges. There is no fair use rule in SL. If you think there should be perhaps you can try and get LL to add it to the TOS. Until then you're talking out of your ass. The permissions system is all we have. Trying to justify "fair use" that requires using a hack to get the texture is laughabe. Ripping textures from ANY software is illegal regardless of the intended use. If a content creator in SL wants you to have access to their raw textures they'll make it available. If they don't want you to have access to it and you do so anyway through a hack you are violating their rights. This isn't rocket science, people.

The whole lynchpin of your illogic rests on you labeling these tools as a 'hack', even though they've been sanctioned, which you tried to dodge when it's been pointed out. The only person talking out of their ass is up in my quote tags, dude.

It's been sanctioned for legitimate, non-infringing use. Can you quote me a Linden specifically giving their blessing on using it to rip protected textures? Somehow I doubt it.

And this isn't infringing use, it falls under fair use. And sure, ask some sometime. I did. I really think you need to work on your control freak issues.

I can see both sides of fair use argument.

As for the clothing problems, like Chip mentioned earlier, I would hope that most designers would want to know of any flaws in their items, and have an opportunity to fix them. I've had to fix some items after they hit the shelves. It happens. So contact them. A designer who doesn't listen to constructive criticism won't have a huge following.

I am currently experimenting with live mannequins in my main store and have so far gotten lots of positive comments (in addition to the gawking - LOL). I plan to have a male mannequin, too. They are there to demonstrate quality mostly. I'd think other designers will try it also.

Another option would be to check out designers on SLEX. Look over their items and see what kind of star ratings they get.

But in the end, if you get something you don't like, please let the designer know. We'll all win in the end if you do.

Please quote me the fair use law that allows you to rip textures from SL for your personal use. I'll wait.

Meanwhile, two sections of note from the TOS:

I suggest you read the 10th amendment before assigning who has the burden of proof.

This is a forum debate, not a court of law... or are you trying to say you have a Constitutional right to rip textures?

I think the best salution would be for you to make your own clothes and sell them. That way you can stand behind the quality of your product and smile saying ok this is how you so it right.

...I too fall victim to bad outfits that look good on vendor pics. It is one reason why I will NEVER EVER buy an outfit where the vendor pic has been enhansed to look better in Photoshop.

See, now you're changing tactics. First it's a hack, then it's legit but only your approved cases, then it's a hack, now when I told you I spoke to several Lindens on this, apparently you're either calling me a liar (Feel free to, you'd still be wrong, but whatever makes you feel better) and you're asking me to quote law at you. Fine, I'll do that. We'll start simple with the Betamax decision:

Manufacturers of home video recording machines could not be liable for contributory copyright infringement for the potential uses by its purchasers, because the devices were sold for legitimate purposes and had substantial non-infringing uses. Personal use of the machines to record broadcast television programs for later viewing constituted fair use. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.

That's simple, but it's apple to oranges because you said so. However to spell it out further, the criteria for judging fair use follow the guidelines of purpose and character, if someone is attempting to profit off of use, for example -- which in this case, no one is attempting to profit. But the key thing is that with the Betamax case, it showed that even the substantial copying of the entire work could be considered fair in a private context. The other main issue is that the burden of proof is not actually to prove commercial use, but actually if that the use is causing significant strain on someone's business. Again, this is more questioning if someone handing you money and privately changing your product for their own use is actually damaging your business -- which I would find interesting to prove.

Fair use in general is a collection of many precedents and if you feel so strongly about this perhaps you should attempt setting a new one, however it wouldn't be with me as I don't own anything of your own, let alone have modified any of it. I can't even count higher than fingers on one hand on how many times I've modified anything I've paid for in such a fashion. Though the other week I did help someone recover content from their store after a hard drive crash wiping out their PSDs, but that's a different issue, obviously.

But alright, let's say that's all bunk. Let's move on to your TOS quotations, since those are always fun.

Section 1.3 is more covering LL's ass and granting them permission to show anyone anything you ever upload since someone may accidentally/intentionally/whatever see it and it's streamed to their machine. That's a total cover their ass and it's not at all barring fair use, since fair use isn't about a transfer of copyright from one person to another as this is describing. Please reread this.

Section 4.2 doesn't apply since libsecondlife and associated tools under the project are authorized.

EDIT: I think ultimately this thread is going to be going back and forth with some fence sitters and people who simply aren't going to change their mind. If you think I'm a toxic, horrible influence, Chip, you're welcome to it. I find your own stances to be gross in spots, but I'm ducking out past this point since this really isn't how I wish to spend my day. You may certainly have last shot on this before the glorious forum closure where we can both go back to being completely unaffected by the existence of each other and our respective view points.

EDIT EDIT laffo, etc: Furthermore, I wish to apologize a bit about my tone. This is obviously something we're both passionate about, but we've veered off into different opinions. I think we both agree that ripping people's shit off for free and selling it or whatever is gross. I think we also both have very strong opinions about art, though I also have very strong opinions about consumer rights as well as the rights that protect my own work. It's very give and take for me and I completely understand how others may feel differently about these balances, but I really can't budge on a lot of this. Nor, do I expect, can you.

There is no lengthy legal wording needed to understand limited use. This little symbol, "©", or simply the creators name covers everything you need to know regarding your rights of use, and even in the absence of that, most textures or texture outfits deal with one or two of the 3 permissions in SL. Your limited rights of use as a buyer should be perfectly clear from that point on. You have been granted a LICENSE of limited use after any purchase unless explicitly stated otherwise. A license, in this context, is PERMISSION in the form of one or more of these 3 rights of use - MOD, COPY, TRANSFER.

I usually follow the "©" with "Second Skin Labs", and then "All rights reserved" to be more clear about things. And, if that's not clear enough, I add "Do not distribute in whole or in part through any means". I embed this text as a watermark in all my textures along with my logo as both a strong and weak watermark encrypted as undetectable random noise (and it does survive significant image manipulation and lossy compression). Nobody needs to go to that length to define thier rights (protection is altogether another issue). The symbol "©" is enough to let the buyer know that the creator has retained copyrights to the the work of which you the buyer have an identical copy of. If the permissions are set to anything other than full MOD, COPY, TRANSFER, it's a moot point whether you have some lengthy legal document or not.