Brick Back Torrid Midnight!

So making mp3s are not okay because it didn't come bundled with the audio cd?

I'm sorry.


Is it okay if I call them assclowns?

Okay, okay an individual can be trusted to use this hack responsibly. I don't use it, more fool me it seems. I use SL not for business but for pleasure anyway. So wide spread use of the hack may do away with custome skin designers but I guess they need to adapt.

<thumbsup>

Feel free! But it's AR-able. <looks about> Not that this forums around much longer in that regard, but hey...

wtf?!

I'm an assclown who should die because I got upset that someone didn't ask my permission for something?

This is out of control.

Go ahead and make it two content creators taking a break from Second Life.

<shakes head>

I'm going to try and explain the reasons for us fighting you on this, because you mean well. Fact is, the road to hell has ALWAYS been paved with good intentions. You cannot convict the innocent in order to catch the guilty.

Not by MY standards, anyway.

The program used is also not a 'hack' as you call it, but a toolkit used by developers in many cases to work on projects.

And finally? You can't fight it, because the first time you tried to pry into someone's home to enforce your thought pattern, you would find that you bounce when you hit the curb. It's not possible for you to actually KNOW they used that software.

Wide spread use of mp3 "hacking" hasn't done away with musicians. Rather, it's proliferated their reach to millions of people that normally would have never heard of them.

So many people in SL assume their stuff is somehow immutably sacred and unable to be copied, and yet have 40 gigs of mp3s on their hard drives.

You can't have both. Pick one.

Have you ever bought a suit and had it tailored to fit you?

Have you ever resized a ring that you bought or had a different stone added?

Have you ever reupholstered your furniture?

Have you ever dyed a dress to a different color?

Have you ever cropped a print or photograph to make it fit into a smaller frame?

Have you ever had a monogram added to your shirt, your jewelry, or any item you purchased?

Have you ever written your name inside a book cover or made notes in it?

Have you ever doodled in a magazine or completed a cross word puzzle?

Have you ever engraved or marked your valuables such as paintings and prints with an identification mark for insurance purposes?

Have you ever punched an extra hole in a belt to make it fit you better?

Have you ever polished your shoes and the color changed?

Have you ever torn up a magazine and used it for packing material?

Have you ever hemmed a skirt?

Have you ever changed the buttons on a dress or added rhinestones to jeans?

Has your little boyscout sewn a badge onto his uniform?

Have you ever added a bead to a pair of earrings you purchased?

Shall I continue?

Some people are so damn impressed with their self imagined importance that they would not want to allow you any of the above customizations.

If the creator of any item intends people to pay full ownership payment for what amounts to merely lending them an item for use. as is, then rental fees should be charged instead of pretending they are selling an item.

Personal property law is pretty clear. The owner of an item can make use of it for his own purposes in most cases unless the usage violates the law. Lordfly is absolutely right and it is worth repeating in case you missed it:

Oh, I didn't say I AGREE with him. I just said that before he was so out of line it was not even worth listening to. And for the love of god, don't take him seriously! Look at his threads for the last long while and calm down.

He's always been like this. I just ignore him, normally.

Art assets in SL are not music CD's. They are not cars. They are not real world clothing. They are not tangible goods. Enough with the analogies already. They do not apply. Art assets in SL are art and they are bound by copyright and IP law. People throw around fair use as if texture artists are trying to deny it to them. We're not trying to deny anyone anything. People are asserting rights they do not have.

Ripping art assets from a software product or game is illegal and is forbidden in the terms of service and EULA's of every single MMO in existence, including SL's (though it's vaguely worded).

This is from World of Warcraft's TOS: "You agree that you will not (i) modify or cause to be modified any files that are a part of a World of Warcraft installation; (ii) create or use cheats, "mods", and/or hacks, or any other third-party software designed to modify the World of Warcraft experience; (iii) use any third-party software that intercepts, "mines", or otherwise collects information from or through World of Warcraft"

This is from SOE: "The Station, including, without limitation, all SOE Communication Features, contains copyrighted material, trademarks and other proprietary information including, without limitation, text, software, photographs, video, graphics, music and sound, and the entire contents of The Station and each area contained therein are copyrighted as a collective work under the United States copyright laws. SOE owns a copyright in the selection, coordination, arrangement and enhancement of such content. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit, any of the content contained on The Station (including, without limitation, content that The Station enables you to download) without the express written permission of SOE and the copyright owner. "

From DAOC: "You acknowledge and agree that Mythic is the sole and exclusive owner of the System, and that Mythic or its suppliers are the sole and exclusive owner(s) of all right, title and interest (including, without limitation, all intellectual property rights), code, programs, routines, subroutines, objects, files, data, characters (including all items, currency, objects and attributes comprising or associated with a character and an Account), and information uploaded to, downloaded from, and accessible through the System, including, without limitation, graphics, sound effects, music, animation-style video and text, some of which may be provided to Mythic under license from independent content providers (collectively, "Game Content". You further acknowledge the Game and the Game Content is protected by copyrights, trademarks, and other proprietary rights owned by Mythic or its suppliers, title to all of which is expressly reserved, and that you acquire no rights in any of the same, express or implied, beyond those granted specifically in the current version of the EUALA."

You won't find a TOS or EULA for any game that isn't open source that doesn't have a similar clause. SL is not some foreign land where copyright laws don't apply. Please stop pretending otherwise. Skin and clothing textures are copyrighted works and simply owning an item in SL (aka, paying for the right to use the item within the service) in no way grants you the right to intercept and mine the graphics for personal use of any kind or to make derivative works, whether or not they are redistributed.

We're not trying to assert special rights that go beyond the law. Those arguing for "fair use" are.

Chip,

You are asserting TOSes from Blizzard and Sony, who own the art assets in question. Please demonstrate a portion of the SL TOS that providers the same coverage. It is not the same thing - LL does not own the art assets.

Except, Katy - let's consider that the designer works within the game, giving the permissions given within the game, such as - no-mod equals no-mod.

Then the individual uses something not part of the game to get around those permissions and then mod it.

That, to me, would be taking an outside tool to use on an item in a way the individual didn't want you to do.

In other words, when I made my ironing board and iron, I decided I really wanted them to stay exactly that way. So I put "no-mod" on them. Now, I don't feel that way about very many items at all, but that is one set of items that I really wanted to stay just as I created them. (Plus I put transfer/sell on them.)

Now, if someone used an outside program - not something that is part of SL - to change this item, I'm not going to be happy. I would further consider it unfair because had I known they were going to do this, I wouldn't have put transfer/sell on the item in the first place.

BUT - and this is key - let's not get involved too much with the reselling part. Let's assume the individual had no intention of reselling it. We then still have two facts:

1. The creator made the object to do what the creator intended, within the game, and only by bringing in outside "programs" (cheats, they sound like to me), can the purchaser get around those intended permissions.

2. The individual can use this program to then make for himself all the variations the creator might be charging for as part of the creator's business (various colors, textures, etc.).

So I think that using these outside programs is the problem here, and that no, it shouldn't be done.

IF you take away the outside program - something the creator never intended, which was not a tool provided by SL - then, and ONLY then, are all these modifications okay.

If an item is made no-mod by the creator, it should STAY THAT WAY. Period.

If it is made mod, then of COURSE the person can mod it.

coco

You can't possibly be that obtuse. The creators own the copyrights to the works they sell in SL and the same laws that cover Blizzard, Sony, Mythic, and all the others also cover me, Lost, Starley, and any other content creator in SL.

You can't possibly be that obtuse either. In World of Warcraft, Everquest, etc.. you are not purchasing a copy of something for your use either. You must obviously running out of arguments if you need to start attacking me personally, Chip.

This is SL. Take it up with LL. Why do they allow all sorts of permissions on content? To use a hack to bypass these permissions is not on.

I'll stick with my own opinon on use of textures/skins, assuming no-copy:

Ripping a texture and modifying it for your own use *is not* theft. It is however, against the DMCA to break/circumvent copy protection, but that's a whole other discussion.

Giving away or selling the original texture while keeping the modified one *is* theft.

Giving away or selling the modified texture *is* theft.

Passing off the modified texture as your own work *is* theft.

That's exactly why I said previously that at worse this was a TOS violation and the accused should be AR. But, I also stated that it would be very unlikely LL would do a thing about this.

If you want to argue for fair use, show me the law that grants it to you for works on which others own the copyright. If you can't you're just talking out of your ass like everyone else. Those protections being asserted by every game developer on the planet are granted by the same laws that protect content creators in SL. It has nothing to do with the specific TOS's or EULA's. Are you asserting that Blizzard et al are asserting rights they don't actually have under the law? Would you be making the same fair use argument about art assets mined from WoW or somewhere else?

If SL were a game, this would make sense. This, however, is a development platform. As such, the products you make have to be made available for purchase. When you sell something, you are GIVING that person a copy for them to use AS THEY SEE FIT. Do I need to start writing EULAs for my prefab homes so people can't wear them on their heads or soemthing?



Music cd + mp3 ripper = same thing.



Sadly the artist gives up proper control over their artwork when they allow it to be put into the hands of other people. This is the way society has worked for millenia; SL is no different.



And i'm quite sure RL industrial designers would prefer it if people would stop modifying their designs. But, when you pay for the object, it is yours, full stop. The artist can't stop you from painting their precious chair.



Assume that anything sold to someone else can/will/has been changed by that person to fit their needs. Assuming anything else is pure folly.

Your hostility continues to amaze me. You can't talk about an issue and not attack the person? If so, you aren't worth responding to. If it has nothing to do with specific TOS's or EULAs, why are you quoting them verbatim? Fair use is decided on a case by case basis (for example, Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)), also known as the Betamax case, which made recording of television shows for private use legal. Also, RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia (1999) which involved the legality of MP3s. You keep using Blizzard/Sony but they are invalid comparisons. We are purchasing content in SL for use, it is not the same model as an MMO.

no let me correct that
SL would be a vert sad place without her in it, as for the others screw them, they wont EVER get my patronage again, stupid hacks, I cannot believe they did this to herHopes she comes back after a break

Congratulations folks. You have now driven TWO wonderful and talented designers out of SL. Gonna keep it up and go for a few more?

Here and I thought we were supposed to be intellegent adults here. Instead I am seeing a pack of squabbling pre-schoolers and I find it disgusting on all sides and in every way. This is something that went too far the moment it was mentioned in public, and continuing it to the point of tit-for-tat insults, accusations, and even death wishes is beyond childish...it's outright insane.

As an outsider here who knows none of the parties involved, but have always loved and appreciated all their work and talent...I can say there will be no winners here people. When wonderful, talented people leave SL, we all lose, and that is very sad.

Again, congratulations.

Chip, Cris, I like you both. I hate watching you fight.

It's ok, we always squabble, we still like each other.

Within granted permissions, yes. Very much like software created for specific platform can come with license which prohibits you from ripping out the content for reuse.

You can choose to not obey the sale contract, but this is more of ability to break the law and hope you won't be spotted and persecuted (or that they won't see it as issue worth pursuing) ... than actual permission from the original maker to do as you see fit.


No, wearing your house on one's head doesn't fall under any area of copyright-related control the original maker has over the item. Disallowing modification of it on the other hand is within the maker's rights -- that's what the 'allow modifications' checkbox is for. Now again, if the buyer chooses to obey it is different matter but such option for the copyright holder *is* there.