Texture Ripping to Fix Bad Clothes

Like I said I'm not being judgemental, Belaya, and I'm quite surprised by the tone of your reply. I'm just relating the law as I understand it. But yes, I would greatly prefer that people not rip my textures. I'm not sure why that's difficult to understand or empathize with, or why you feel I'm trying to somehow trample your rights. And it's funny that you should mention the RIAA since your example reminds me of internet radio stream ripping, which is also illegal. If you have something of mine you'd like fixed to your satisfaction, ask me. Until then, kindly take your attitude back to Kazaa.

It is interesting the things you take a hard line with about being illegal and so they should never be done, and the things you advocate are fine to do regardless of the laws. You mentioned Kazaa, but that is an invalid comparison in this situation. No one is talking about taking the textures and distributing them (which is what the Kazaa comparison would be).

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.

Belaya, one very simple question for you (and for anyone else who thinks that ripping a texture to make a change for personal use is acceptable)...

Why wouldn't you just ask the creator for the texture so you could make your change?

That is the minimum of respect I would expect to be shown by my fellow SL residents. If I say no, and I would, and you go ahead and do it anyway, is it still A-OK even though I've expressly told you no? I think the whole reason people are trying to defend this practice is because they know that the vast majority of creators would say no. Are we simply tossing respect out the window because it conflicts with individual desires? because people are unwilling to accept no for an answer?

The protections afforded texture artists in SL are bad enough without members of the community basing the amount of consideration they show to others on the limits of the permissions system. Does it all boil down to "fuck it. I'll do what I want because I can and you can't stop me."? Is the amount of consideration we show each other as creators defined by the limits of the technology to protect us? If so, that's truly sad.

I take a hard line on this because what people are asking is for a blanket legitimization of texture ripping based on the assumption that content creators should trust everyone by default. In a perfect world that would be fine, but one need only look around at the amount of theft in SL to know how imperfect it is. If you can't simply ask a designer for access to a texture and accept no as an answer if that's what it is, we're supposed to just be fine with people going ahead and doing it anyway? When did common courtesy become such an endangered species?

Why wouldn't you just ask the creator for the texture so you could make your change?

If I say no, and I would, and you go ahead and do it anyway, is it still A-OK even though I've expressly told you no?

Are we simply tossing respect out the window because it conflicts with individual desires?

Is the amount of consideration we show each other as creators defined by the limits of the technology to protect us? If so, that's truly sad.

LL has occasionally had bugs with the DRM flags (a.k.a. permissions) changing spontaneously. If these bugs change the DRM flags to mod+copy+trans, does that automatically mean you intended for your work to be essentially public domain?

SL's DRM flags are not a reliable indicator of the content creator's intent, so you should not assume any rights other than "All rights reserved" unless the creator explicitly grants them; of course, keep in mind that federal copyright law still grants you rights to Fair Use and First Sale regardless of the creator's intent.

Belaya, one very simple question for you (and for anyone else who thinks that ripping a texture to make a change for personal use is acceptable)...

Why wouldn't you just ask the creator for the texture so you could make your change?

That is the minimum of respect I would expect to be shown by my fellow SL residents. If I say no, and I would, and you go ahead and do it anyway, is it still A-OK even though I've expressly told you no?

I have at times, depends on what the change is and the circumstances. Several are no longer around, some outright don't do custom, etc. I think you're trying to make this look like it's totally a lack of respect to exercise rights, which I don't feel is particularly fair, but nothing in this situation is very fair beyond a compromise.

There's entitlement issues on both sides of this debate. I personally think common courtesy also extends to not assuming everyone is a criminal out to fuck you. But you're making an appeal to emotion at this point, so I'll answer with another.

I know someone who sells skins without bits at all. I know several people who have added their own on their own purchased copies later. Would you feel comfortable asking an essential stranger to 'pls add the vag'? Could you understand why someone wouldn't?

I don't think we're going to be friends after such an exchange, I certainly don't think we're ever going to agree -- but hey, I certainly know how you feel. I know I said I wasn't going to reply and you'd have last word, but you asked me directly a question, so I did. I don't think we really have anything left to say to each other over this.

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 take a hard line on this because what people are asking is for a blanket legitimization of texture ripping based on the assumption that content creators should trust everyone by default.

In a perfect world that would be fine, but one need only look around at the amount of theft in SL to know how imperfect it is.

I also have zero problem with the fair use concepts here. I am completely opposed to the unauthorized distribution of someone else's work, but I have no problem with someone who has bought and item and then modifies it as they see fit. What they do with it once they have it is up to them. I recognize why it is a touchy subject, but I think that most of that comes from an inability to trust that someone would not distribute the work. People who want to steal are going to, no matter what protections are put in place. Fair use is an important concept to stand up for - it is being trampled more and more in the digital age because of the ease of distribution, but what it ends up doing is treating customers like criminals.

So I assume this means you sell your animations with full permissions? It's easy to take a noble stance on fair use when your content is fully protected. I wonder what your position would be if your work could be as easily copied.

The copyright symbol tells me that what I have purchased is copyrighted by its creator. Under US law, copyright gives the creator (or copyright owner) certain broad rights over use and distribution of his or her work--but these rights are not unlimited. In general, can do what I please with a legally purchased copy of a copyrighted item, so long as I do not redistribute it (or an unauthorized derivitive work based upon it).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip Midnight
I take a hard line on this because what people are asking is for a blanket legitimization of texture ripping based on the assumption that content creators should trust everyone by default.



No one is supporting a "blanket legitimization of texture ripping"; rather it is being argued that the purchaser of an item has certain fair use rights--when dealing with a legitimately purchased copy of an item.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip Midnight
In a perfect world that would be fine, but one need only look around at the amount of theft in SL to know how imperfect it is.



No one on this thread is arguing in favor of texture theft.

Hypothetical situation:

Customer A (hereafter refered to as A) buys creator X's (hereafter refered to as X) avatar texture product, then decides she wants to make alterations to it. A pulls the textures out of the open GL render and alters the hue and saturation in Photoshop, draws a few lines here and there, then uploads it back into SL for personal use. (..)

This situation happens several times over until X is no longer recognized as the creator of the original product because of so many personally altered versions in circulation. Yes, they are in CIRCULATION because everyone can see them. X's work has essentially become public domain by unauthorized proxy.

Hmm this is however no different --when you think of it-- from situation where customer A buys a car from manufacturer X and paints the flames on hood, fits custom rims and does whatever else their sick imagination can come up with to the generic shape. The car is then certainly 'in circulation' because A then uses their modified vehicle every day, essentially putting them on public display. Along with thousand other customers who also modified their own copies of the car in whatever ways they found appropriate.

Yet it certainly doesn't make the vehicle in question public domain -- as the only source of generic model used as base for all these modifications is still supplied only by the original maker. And while some people may not have common sense not to mail the producer about some particular modifications they run into, it doesn't affect the view on manufacturer in general, in the eyes of general public.

I'm interested in views on the ethics of this (see subject). I haven't done it, nor do I intend to do it, but it's certainly crossed my mind, and I wonder if others do it. Basically, I'm tired of buying clothes that are so badly made that I realise I'll never wear them within seconds of buying/trying on. They generally look fantastic on the vendor image, but then it didn't display particular areas with appalling seam matching (particularly around shoulders), badly cut collars, halo effect around neck and arms, etc. -- which inevitably give the effect of something that fell out of a Yadni's box.

I sympathize with the complexities involved in making *good* clothes, but it bothers me that (i) I paid premium prices for clothes with (ii) issues that I can often fix in photoshop quite easily -- but of course I'm not allowed.

Yeah, I make my own clothes before anybody suggests I do so, but I don't think that justifies the sale of badly made ones. I spent around $1700L on clothes in the past four/five days, and approx. 700L of that on clothes I'll never wear. What's more, I've become accustomed to this pattern over the past couple of months: That 1/3 to 1/2 the clothes I buy will be badly made, and more often than not, a refund will be out of the question. Is this a guy thing? I sometimes wonder if many guys even pan the camera around their avatar, and notice the defects obvious to everybody else.

Unless we get a try before you buy facility, or at least a dummy avatar in store that could demonstrate clothes prior to sale, I guess these clothes will remain for sale...simply because they continue to sell.

Make your own clothes then.

If you break the copy-protection, its will be illegal. Simple as that. At least at the european union.

There is no copy protection in Second Life. It's all an illusion.

Doesn't the car, in this case, actually represent the avatar if you are trying to make a fair comparison?