Brick Back Torrid Midnight!

No they didn't, Sunspot.

They set up the program itself to disallow such things.

One might as well argue that the fences around Six Flags and the locks on the gate are meaningless unless Six Flags specifically erected a signboard saying: "These fences and locks are meant to indicate that you can't come in."

coco

P.S. It is LL itself who says, "You may not modify this object," after the owner checks it there. Modifying it goes in direct opposition to what LL as specifically stated.

An IP owner has the right to state the terms of use.

When you are talking about modification for personal use, this is a legal grey area, as lawyers in this and other threads have said. Therefore it is pefectly fair to use common real world use as a baseline of arugument and precident. And in the real world, modifcation of even copyright protected items for the personal use of the owner is not only common, the software that is made specifically for this purpose is legally available. Without a contract, I doubt very much the argument that someone can't rip a cd or use a VCR is going to win in any court, and this is the same thing, unless LL states otherwise.

When you check off the mod box, I do not read anything that states: "by viewing this checked box you agree to the following limitations of use...."

If you put up a sign in your store: "By purchasing these items you agree to the following terms of use..." I think you would have a case, honestly, I disagree with Chip there. But I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the forums.

This is not meant for a major derail, but:

What if the sign did not rez? Was grey? Was blocked by other objects?

Just asking?

Then they could sue LL.

Too late, my mind is long gone.

Here's an interesting twist - marking an item modify does not give you access to the texture. So you are not subverting the modify permissions anyway. Mod would only allow you to modify your avatar's skin file that the texture file is placed into, which has no effect on the skin (unless the skin is tintable like mine is).

Yes; though it still stems from simple aspect: copyright holder has exclusive right to create derivative works (works that adapt the original work) out of their IP. Which is what modifications (for personal use or not) are about. The holder can choose to grant such right to another person, but they don't have to. Therefore i don't think there's much room to operate in situation where it's specifically stated the copyright holder does not grant the right to modify their work. At least i couldn't find it anywhere in articles on often cited "fair use"


Legality of software allowing illegal modifications isn't much of argument am afraid, in the same way being able to legally purchase guns doesn't grant one permission to override law which states what use of such legally purchased weapon is considered illegal. In other words, if there's software which allows one to make legal 'backup copy' of owned CD, or to debug openGL code of their application, the existence of such software is by no means excuse to use it for illegal activity without having to worry about potential repercussions.

And note, again... modification of copyrighted material can be indeed perfectly legal, _if_ the copyright holder actually grants such permission. When terms of contract are not stated you can perhaps use justification such right was presumably granted (i have no idea if that'd hold up) _But_ when the copyright holder makes it specific and clear point that such permission is *not* granted... well, it's entirely different story, imo.


'Ripping a CD' is allowed as means to make a back up copy of data you purchased. Usage of VCR is allowed for time-shifting, like mentioned earlier in the thread. Neither of these are really anything like what we talk about -- which is ripping out content to create derivative work (while keeping the original intact) in situation where copyright holder goes out of their way to make it clear they do not grant their customers such permission.


... I give up. If "the next owner (buyer) is not permitted to modify this item" isn't viewed by you as clear enough statement that you are not permitted by copyright holder to modify the item, then what on this green earth possibly *would*? ^^;

So you're basically saying that regardless of the original creator's wishes, which was not to modify the original item -- you should still be able to modify it?

Why does anyone bother having the mod permission then?

Are you saying the no-mod option is useless and should be ignored?

But I didn't agree to the terms of that CD I bought last week either... how is it that that is legally binding? Not trying to be a bitch here, but I know of many things that people are bound by which they didn't have to check a box to be subject to.

Which, when you actually think of it, means you are not actually purchasing textures used to make the skin when you buy the skin. What you actually buy is a few texture UUIDs which together form this particular appearance.

In this sense, only changing these UUIDs to UUIDs of different textures in the skin file could be considered act of modding the skin (permitted or not) ... pulling out actual textures and then changing them in any manner is going entirely beyond scope of 'personal modifications' as it allows one to get their hands on the content they didn't actually purchase -- i.e. the raw textures. If the skin maker was okay with the idea of handing over textures with whatever permissions, they'd sell these files, not compilation of UUIDs and other appearance data.

You are granting right of use within the service and only through the means provided by the SL client software. Ripping the textures with the use of 3rd party software clearly falls outside the scope of that agreement. You can't create and sell content in SL, decide you want to take your ball and go home, and then assert that the people who have your content in their inventory no longer have the right to use it.

What we really need is for Philip or someone to clearly enumerate their stance on texture ripping and consumer rights with regard to texture based content in SL. It would also be nice to get an accurate summation of copyright law as it applies to SL texture based goods from an IP lawyer.

I am saying that I am not going to demonize people and treat them as criminals for doing this. I don't have a problem with this particular action, I'm sorry, but I don't. I am not alone in feeling this way. This is so minor in comparison to the rampant theft and resale that is actually going on that the amount of drama wasted on it is just silly. Demonize the people reselling content and profitting off of it, not someone who modified the lips on a freaking skin.

Because a "mod" ability may not include the texture in this instance doesn't mean that "no mod" therefore doesn't refer to any and all properties that "mod" doesn't happen to confer.

Additionally, "no modify" has the meaning of, "no modify." The intent is, "may not be modified in any way." That is underscored by the message: "You may not modify this item."

Taking the texture - by means not given to you or available in the program - out of the program to make modifications on it that would not have even been possible in the program - doesn't then make it that an "okay modification."

coco

Joannah, once again, if I buy a copyright protected work of art, such as a print, are you going to stand behind the idea that I can't doodle or paint on it or cut it up before I hang it on my wall? If I alter the format of a music CD, to use on my mp3 player, am I going to jail? These are common uses of IP, despite all the legalese, and I doubt very much that recoloring a texture someone bought for personal use is going stand as a legal argument for copyright infringement, without more of a written agreement than the vague and sometimes contradictory TOS.

Edit to add, it's not "ripping" textures out of SL with gl intercept, they reside right on your hard drive, not encrypted, either.

The only reason why people are even bugging out about this is because the ones who lifted the textures decided to write blogs about how stupid it is to even be pissed about it. And then there are all these nebulous "death threats" floating around.

In the venerable words of Scarface, from Half Baked, "Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, you're cool, and fuck you, I'm out!"

*clarification: I'm not cussing Cris out.

You seem to be implying that anyone who believes that ripping textures for any reason is wrong are somehow demonizing those who do it to make a personal mod. If so, that's unfair. I'm certainly capable of distinguishing between the two. That doesn't mean I have to agree that one of them is acceptable. I think what Mis did was wrong but I certainly wouldn't demonize her. She's one of my favorite people and someone I trust implicitly. I can still disagree with her, you, or anyone else without being some kind of totalitarian bad guy. No one is demonizing anyone and these kinds of hyperbolic arguments do everyone on both sides of the debate a disservice.

No; am standing behind the idea that if you buy such a print that happens to have attached contract to it stating you are not allowed to modify it in any way, yet you go and do it anyway, then you are --with full knowledge-- paying no regard to wish of original copyright holder. This isn't something i'd consider criminal offense and am fairly sure no one would try to get court case over something like this, but i have no doubt if the actual copyright holder happened to find out about it, they'd have every right to feel you have complete disregard for their feelings over the matter. And as such they would be perfectly in right to feel hurt and/or angry about it, especially if you happened to be person they considered acquaintance or worse yet. a friend.

This is why it's imo much bigger issue in SL than in RL. because the world is smaller, the word is much more likely to get around fast, and people are bound to get hurt. So everyone just have to ask themselves if they think their 'right' to do whatever they please with someone else's work is really worth the feelings that get stepped on in the process. :/

That is not the only reason, Lo. Mistress did not name any names in her blog entry, then Ambyance came along and not only blogged about Mistress, but decided to blog about Torrid as well to provide "back story" over a long settled issue between Torrid and Lost, and also make nebulous claims about some jeans texture from several years ago, all while calling them thieves. That is what caused all this to escalate. There is no reason Torrid should have been dragged out into this now. I am sure Lost or Ambyance or anyone else would not appreciate having things that have happened in their past that have been resolved dragged out in public to provide "back story".

I am not implying anything, Chip - you are. You think it is wrong, I don't think it is wrong. It is as simple as that. I am not going to say that someone who did this is a terrible person or has committed theft or that I have lost respect for them - all things that have been said about Torrid and Mistress, because it is not how I feel. I would not feel that way about anyone doing it - I just simply do not have a problem with it, and am expressing that opinion. Why is it alright for you to express your opinion, call me obtuse, claim I am speaking out of my ass, blah blah, but I cannot express mine? You are no more a lawyer than I am, Chip - so much of this is all theoretical, and all the forum debate masturbation in the world is not changing anything.

But that is kinda the point. The people who are just modding the stuff for personal use are the ones getting hurt, here. Decent people, people who are supposedly friends, over something that I consider a vague and subjective argument over what is and is not "wrong" or "legally binding". In either case, it is certainly not theft, not as we really (honestly, now) think about it in SL, that kind of justifiable anger is usually saved for people who copy textures to resell them for personal profit. Not the case here.

Meanwhile the real thieves are going about their business without a thought about any of this drama. They sure as hell aren't leaving over it.

If I recall correctly there was a threat relatively recently that those who ripped CDs to put on their iPods in Australia were in violation of copyright law because it's illegal to rip a CD's music for any reason.

You think this is fair?

Ultimately it's one thing to harp on about but really, some of you guys would piss yourselves if you realized what little protection we have as content creators. It goes beyond texture ripping and into ways to remove permissions from objects and manipulate them even if they belong to someone else. It's frightening.

I believe in fair use, even if that means one day something I made and sold will be stolen and resold. That's what brand loyalty is. Develop something people like so when they see rip offs they'll know who to blame.

But considering how easily recognizable skin works are, this argument is akin to me taking pictures while driving my Dominus Shadow, then posting how 'unnamed maker of the car i use' is harassing me, isn't it? I mean sure, technically am not naming any names, but that's stopping anyone from knowing who the person in question is, how? ^^;;;

You are implying that anyone who disagrees with you is demonizing those who do not. It's a rather cheap tactic and strikes me as unfair and disingenuous.



And who did say that? One person? Two? No one participating in this discussion fits that description.



That's great and certainly your right. Kindly try to do it without doing any demonizing yourself.

I won't address the cheap tactics you have been using, especially the ones about obeying the law. I simply said I won't demonize someone over this issue. That is not implying anything, no matter how much you claim that I am. You don't get to speak to my intent, and to do so is incredibly arrogant on your part. I have witnessed people being demonized over this issue, and I will not respond the same way. That in no way implies that everyone who feels differently has demonized people. To claim that is just patently stupid, Chip.