Brick Back Torrid Midnight!

You are correct that 3rd party hacking doesn't fall under "use within the service" but it also has nothing to do with our contract with Linden Lab.

Let's say I "buy" a shirt from your store that is no-trans, no-copy, no-mod.

Some way or another I edit the shirt and upload it to my inventory. The moment it is uploaded to my inventory, I have agreed to distribution, reproduction, etc. rights as per the TOS.

The TOS specifically indicates that LL is not responsible for policing content to ensure that the user uploading the content has the right to do so.

At this point, I have an object that every user has the right to use within SL based on the loophole I described earlier in this thread.

If you, as the person that sold the shirt I bought, felt I infringed on one of your copyrights because of a likeness between the two creations, you have the right to sue me but there is no guarantee you will win.

I can't believe you guys are still arguing semantics of the TOS.
What was this thread about again?

...oh right..

I didn't read this thread because with all the "Bring back" threads that were going on I thought it was another of those.

Wow, now that I read the thread and all the links from Aimee's story I just want to say I hope Torrid feels better soon.

I can't comment on the other stuff. TOS and fair use and all that is up to you guys to hammer out here lol. I just want to point out to Torrid if she can read this that after surgery things look really fuzzy. Going through something major like that makes one tend to look at life and re-evaluate priorities. It would be a sad day for SL if you walked away from the game entirely. You have contributed so much and though I have never met you in world you have impacted me. Hell, your tutorial on AO's was the only thing that made sense to me when trying to figure them out. If not for you I amy still be walking around with the lame SL defaults lol. That is just a drop in the sea of things you have done for us all. Don't let the bastards get you down lady! Hate IMs etc are just words. Don't let them effect you this much.

Get well soon. Know that there are more standing with ya then behind you with knives for your back. The community loves ya!

But the thing is, this protection is *not* above and beyond common real world use. To use your own example, you choose personally to sell your web designs with 'mod' permission, likely because you well realize ability to mod it is a strong selling point in itself. You do have, however, full right to restrict such modifications from your buyer. And they can either agree, or go to another web designer who will grant them mod rights along with hopefully similar quality of service.

Some creators in SL choose to utilize this option, and some don't. Part of their business model and personal preference, but it's not something special by any means...

Can we get some naked jello wrestling in then, please?

Section 4.2 only applies to the software created by Linden Lab.

Sadly, pretty much.

I don't want to come off like an ass. I love both Starley and Torrid's work a lot and have bought a lot of it.

But in the end, the system can be gamed, and no single person is responsible. GL Intercept is SL's VCR. Completely within fair principles, but can wreck things in the wrong hands.

Remember, for 90% of the people here, this is just a game, and most people, given the choice, would much rather use a cheat code.

I don't condone releasing people's things to the public or selling it once it's ripped.

But I also think there *is* nothing that LL will do to protect the content, as it keeps them out of the legal fights that would erupt like drama wars on the forums, and most of SL is too damn poor to afford to sue anyway.

So my main argument is: This is the system that's always been here. Sorry you didn't find out about it til late. What, you don't like it? Do like every other online place. Live with it or go find some place else.

I couldn't agree with that more. If LL would deliver on their promise to add texture layers as they've been saying they would for well over a year it would do so much to help both content creators and consumers. It's the one bloody feature I've been begging for for years now.

If you want those kind of exclusive rights, make everyone who buys your content sign a real contract stating explicitly that they will not modifiy it for their own personal use, because I cannot find in the TOS the rights that content creators are claiming for themselves. Only LL protecting it's own software. That is what I agreed to.

BTW, to get back on topic a bit, I do hope Starley and Torrid get their butts back in here. The world will be much smaller and less colorful without them around.

I disagree. It applies to access to the service which includes the content of the service. It's saying that the user agree to only access SL and SL's content through the software provided by Linden Lab. Using a 3rd party program to gain access to SL content in a way not intended and not provided for by LL is clearly a violation of that clause.

I am seeing what looks to me to be a pouring on of support over loyalty, especially because the drahma card "I am leaving" has been brought to the table. I apologize to you for being wrong, but bear in mind it does look that way.

The apology is null and void in the context of your opinion (you think that this behavior is acceptable). One might query; why would you cite the apology then? I don't care when this happened. And the fact that you and others are trying to wish it away NOW has no bearing. We're dealing with it now. If you want to sweep it under the rug, citing a convenient and undefined expiration date, go ahead, but the rest of us are obviously not going to, and didn't know about this SEVERAL MONTHS AGO! Congratulations on your use of all caps for empahsis.

Because you CAN rip the DRM off them does that make it right?

Then lobby for a change, but until that change is in place, it's trouncing on the creator's wishes. No transfer bugs the crap out of me, but I am not going to rip a set of clothing, transfer it to my friend, and then delete my copy, because at this point in time I am not supposed to.


I read the whole thread, I read Aimee's tabloid, and the blogs linked therein. I did not say you supported the redistribution, that's a straw man.

If you have a problem with the speed limit in your neighborhood, should you just break it or lobby to change it? If you don't like the rules, get them changed, but until then, they're still rules, and whatever means used to circumvent them goes against the rules.

Lost posted his terms of use here. They were breached. It's that simple.

For it to be applicable, Lost needs to have the user agree to it as a condition of the sale, and be able to show that they agreed to it as a condition of purchase. Just posting some notice on a wall in the store is not binding.

Ironically enough no, am not defending this particular point of view from personal standpoint. It's more for the ones who do want to exercise their rights in such manner. And i don't see what difference a separately written contact is going to make, in comparison to clear label on the item "the next owner (i.e. the buyer) cannot modify this item". It's the same thing, conditions of purchase.

As for the TOS? here's the section you're looking for:

"3.2 You retain copyright and other intellectual property rights with respect to Content you create in Second Life, to the extent that you have such rights under applicable law."

ability to control permission of modification etc is part of standard copyright/intellectual property rights. You're explicitly granted these as part of the ToS.

The loss was ZERO considering all items used were either PAID for or GIVEN to the parties by the creators!


This has gotten to the point of being beyond pathetic.

We should blame LL. People will be people and if the tools are there than we'll use them. It's okay to be altruistic and say we can't criminalise everyone for using it but come on, you do a screen capture and you 'accidentally' capture the skin of the person next to you? Are you not the tiniest little bit tempted to use it? You're right it’s something that SL creators have to accept. Maybe it’s part of the evolution of SL.

Lost's "terms of use" are illegal as it pertains to content within Second Life. Lost only retains copyright and IP rights that he didn't already assign by agreeing to the Terms of Service section 3.3 and 3.4.

Section 3.3 and 3.4 effectively are an agreement between content creators and Linden Lab. It grants non-exclusive, royalty free rights to all content uploaded to Second Life to not only Linden Lab but to all users.

Excellent point - the textures in question were paid for.

We can fault LL for being naive about their system

Personally though, I'm actually not tempted to copy anyone else's things. I only copy the things I've already bought.

Then again, I'm weird and don't carry a cell phone either.

In the end, it's sad that we lost two great designers from this whole ordeal. Others will come and take their place if they stay gone, but they will still be missed.

You are granted IP rights, their specific terms are not stated. What you added was your own statement, not something that is in the TOS.

Now, does that mean that I don't sympathize with content creators who assume that checking off the "no mod" box is the same as a binding contract with the purchaser of their goods not to alter it for personal use? Yes, I do. I also know that is checked off for no other reason than the creator doesn't want someone screwing up their shoes and then complaining to them about it. I also can't find LL stating anywhere that the checkbox is a legal agreement with the IP owner.

<taps foot. Thinks on it...>

Okayyyyy.

Can we try to get some bascis down here? We're all over the board, and even backsliding. I'm not trying to be snide, I just think we need to get some points down, and make sure we agree:


1. The party in question purchased the 'skin' in question.
2. She then modded said skin by use of a program that reads data directly from the video card or graphics subsystem thereof.

From this, the differing arguments are:

a. She did not have the right to bypass the security measures in SL, and make a copy of a skin she purchased for use on her own hard drive.
b. She has the right to do the above, even though it skirts the TOS and certain moral/legal issues.
c. The overall question is what we have the right to do to items we have in our own home, purchased with our own money.
d. If a person uploads a texture they hacked out of the game, even if only for their own personal use, they are technically giving the rights for anyone to use it based on the TOS. This leads to a conflict with the ability to say they are only using it for 'personal use'.

Did that cover it all? I think so.


I see arguments for both sides:
- If a program has graphics I want to use for my computer's desktop wallpaper, and I hack it out, is that a problem if I purchased it and am not sharing the computer?
- If a program has two modes, and just changing ONE byte in the program will turn on the second, although it would normally cost an additional amount of money, is THIS allowable?

What is the differance between the two above?

I am not a lawyer, and moral issues are hard to quantify. I do know that we NEED to figure this out...

And for the record, keep your heads clear, people. We don't want emotion in this at all, if it can be kept out.

Well then it's a free for all.

Linden Lab is really to blame here for having a perms system which is basically rendered null and void by their own TOS.

I am glad I sell my things on 3d resource sites and not in SL, and this whole ordeal makes me even more sure that I won't be selling things here. The places where I sell my things do not render my terms of use impotent, in fact they uphold them, as they should. Apparently Linden Lab's selling point of IP rights is just so much marketspeak.

"copyright" is quite specific and generally well defined term. Unlike say, "use"

"Several exclusive rights typically attach to the holder of a copyright:

to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies)
to import or export the work
to create derivative works (works that adapt the original work)
to perform or display the work publicly
to sell or assign these rights to others

The phrase "exclusive right" means that only the copyright holder is free to exercise the attendant rights, and others are prohibited using the work without the consent of the copyright holder."


How did you accept the terms of agreement when signing up for SL in the first place?

... that's right, by clicking a checkbox next to statement "I agree to the Terms of Service."

i think if the discussion is now going to degenerate into splitting hairs over whether clickable element of GUI can or cannot be considered 'making legal contract' in medium that doesn't actually let you sign papers manually, then there isn't much point into continuing it. We're no longer trying to get across the forest, but rather mulling over shape of particular trees along the way. :/

Then be ready to "sympathize" with content creators who assume that not checking the "copy" box is the same as a binding contract with the purchaser of their goods not to copy it for personal use.

Next, be ready to "sympathize" with content creators who assume that not checking the "no transfer" box is actually the same thing as a binding contract with the purchaser of their goods not to resale them for their personal profit.

This is all quite ironic.

We have people in this thread putting forward the notion that we are naive, at best, to actually expect the permissions boxes as checked to be treated as checked.

We have people putting forward the notion that there is actually nothing wrong with riding roughshod over the permissions given by a creator, using whatever hacks possible.

And yet, isn't it funny how so many of these people will go absolutely livid when someone resells a product that has transfer/sell checked?

(Most people reserve their ire only for goods with copy as well as transfer checked, but some get angry even when someone dares to resell a non-copy item.)

So . . . we're supposed to know not to resell items with resell and/or resell/copy permissions actually GIVEN them by the creator.

And we're also supposed to know that it's actually okay to use a third-party program to modify items when modify permission has NOT been given the item by the creator.

Goodness, what mental gymnastics.

coco

The thread was started on an emo point; "Don't leave". It's hardly surprising it is emo at this point.

Everything I have said, and you have outlined above are pointless. As Johnny has shown, Linden grants themselves and all users rights to all content made by residents. That means copying, sharing and reselling as far as I can tell. Not happy.