Brick Back Torrid Midnight!

I just seeded my post with the word "game" to see who would decide that using that word made any of my points moot.

But using it (or "platform" helps to differentiate SL from real life.

Which we have to do, because there are things possible in SL that are not possible irl.

For example: It is not possible in real life to take your television set, click it once or twice and bang, you get a whole brand-new fresh copy of that exact television set. Then you mod your second TV (or third or fifteenth one) to your own desire.

Hence the permissions system.

If the item is sold as mod and it is modded, then I see no problem.

If it is NOT sold as mod, it should NOT BE MODDED. Period, end of story. Buy a different one or make your own.

You seem to be arguing that the permissions we set can and should be rightfully superceded at any time by an outside hack (or cheat, or program, or whatever you want to call it).

But in doing so, what you are arguing for would essentially put all SL businesses out of business in no time. Then there will be no commerce. Except with land.

I am one who can't GET more vociferous about the right of a person to mod mod items, and to transfer/sell transfer/sell items, and to copy, mod, AND sell items the creator has given those permissions to.

When those boxes have been checked off, yes, the creator loses all rights to dictate what will happen to his piece.

If you check off mod, then don't complain when people mod it.

But when they haven't been checked off, then to do them anyway is to cheat.

If the creator hasn't checked off mod and you mod it anyway, you have done wrong.

Consider the permissions boxes analogous to law in SL. People use them and depend on them. They make sense. They work.

Getting around them by outside hacks breaks those laws of our SL society. SL commerce depends on those laws.

coco

I don't understand why you feel it necessarry to leave.
Let them bitch. That's all they can really do is bitch.
Of course, with all of this publicty to this little drama I imagine the sales of products for those involved will rise substantially no?

I wouldn't give them what they want by leaving.
If those in question want to get their panties in a bunch over the alteration of a skin, they should have taken better steps to insure that could not bave occured. So who is really at fault?

Is she reselling the skin?
If not then I can't see the issue.

Shake your head all you like. It may be a toolkit used by developers but in the SL context it is a hack used to bypass content permissions.

If you don't agree with the permission system take it up with LL or do not buy any content that is ticked 'no mod'.

Please note the permission is granted strictly for the purpose of time-shifting, not storage and multiple viewing. While you can record a tv show and watch it at convenient time, if you then kept such tape this is another matter entirely. Which is why it wouldn't really apply to the concept of 'recording copy of SL texture for private use', as some tried to use it for justification.

just sayin' ^^;;

My point was that each is taken on a case by case basis. I am actually curious how this would hold up in court, as there are a bunch of grey areas here. You have a digital product in a virtual world being purchased with a virtual currency. The permission system could technically be considered DRM, but I don't know if that would hold up in court. Fair use is always hashed out by the courts in the end. The models of art content in MMOs does not apply to this situation, and the SL TOS doesn't directly cover it. Thus, ultimately, it would be up to a court to decide - existing law doesn't necessarily address it.

Its not a fight; it's a debate between two of the most thoughtful, intelligent and eloquent members who post on the forums! We are very lucky to have such well stated positions to both sides of the debate. This is what makes the discussion forum so worthwhile!

The more I think about it, and we did have a long argument about this before I knew this whole sordid story, the more it comes down to this, for me.

I pay for the texture. It is sitting on my hard drive, it is not encrypted, and the program I use to access it is not illegal. This is no different than cutting up a copyright protected image on a poster that I own to fit a frame or whatever I want to do with it. This attitude of "if you are using a program that can be used for nefarious purposes, you are breaking some imaginary law", even though you bought and paid for the texture, and have no intention of reselling it, just modifying it for your personal use, doesn't fly with me and it won't sell to any court in the country.

I'm a paying customer, not a fucking criminal.

Enough.

Aye; i'd guess the cases like you mention could actually be used in such issue, at least in the sense that usage of content ripper cannot be prohibited because there's legitimate uses for such tool... the actual act of modifying content through out-of-SL means is more iffy because it relies on end user 'keeping their end of bargain' so to speak, in the sense of not using it as way to make copies or modifications when it's against expressed will of copyright holder. And because the buyer gets clear information in advance about the permission set on the item, it can be argued they knowingly accept limitations set by the copyright holder, at the moment of purchase... in other words, 'no mod is no mod, mod is a (fair) game, same for the other permission bits'

still, this is pure guesswork, of course ^^;

Since we've ventured completely off the topic of Torrid leaving SL, we now seem to be focusing on the nature of IP rights.

Copyright law is as broken in this country as patents. Copyright law is nebulously written to give people very fundamental guidelines so creators can protect their livelihood while also helping consumers mitigate their risk of being sued.

Copyright and IP are not black and white issues because someone has to file suit to determine if they are right as the creator or the user.

As I've said many times on SecondCast, we have no precedent for a situation where the game developer establishes that content creators retains copyrights while also granting the game developer nearly unlimited rights to distribute the content. Further, there is no precedent in a case where a user is downloading content from the game developer and intercepts the DNA of textures and renders them to files.

Just take a look at the TOS for SL. There is language here that seasoned IP attorneys could take in a dozen directions. Just reading them myself makes me think all of you will come up with many other citations and meanings.

For example:



I interpret this to mean LL is not actually delegating your rights. They are simply saying they are not responsible for your creations and its your job to figure out what this means.



I interpret this to mean creators grant consumers unlimited, royalty-free usage of their creations within Second Life. An attorney might even try to posit that this doesn't cover the methods in which the creations are obtained as long as its through some form of use of the Service.



I interpret this to mean that content creators don't have the right to patent rights. Who knows.

In any case, until a case goes to court and a verdict is made, we have nothing that resembles an alleged infringement in Second Life.

Well, I guess I would disagree.

But let me ask you this: If you think you should be able to mod an object, even if the creator expressly forbade it through use of the existant permissions system, shouldn't you also think you should be able to resell it?

Why should one be okay, and not another?

After all, in real life, they can't stop us from reselling that TV set, either.

coco

That's entirely what fair use *is*. It's the conditions under which copyright material may be used without permission. It's the limited use of copyrighted material without permission of the rights holder. Furthermore I'm not sure questions of DRM are even applicable given that tools employed have granted permission that goes beyond the TOS and that when asked about the TOS as it applies and if it would be modified, Cory said at SLCC that if it needed to be, it would.

Wikipedia has an entire section on fair use, by the way.


Anyway, agree, disagree with fair use, etc. this doesn't matter. Now Starley is gone. That's two. It's ironic that the two people I saw be the most reserved and quiet on the situation are the ones who got driven out.

I tried earlier to point out that perhaps it was irresponsible to lump someone into this, then someone had to wish Starley dead and call her names based upon an irresponsible article. I think that's ultimately more important to a community than us having a semantics war over interpretations of law.

It would be very difficult to get a court to take it seriously, I agree. But you know the item you buy is no mod yet you use a hack to gain permissions for the item that LL specifically placed code in its software for you NOT TO HAVE. Why buy it in the first place if you don't agree with the 'no mod' clause than LL placed in its software?

Well, now Starley has gone too, so to everyone thats made stupid fucking threats and deals, you've driven out two excellent and talented designers.

Fuck anyone thats played a part in this and shame on you.

<3 to Torrid and Starley and I hope you BOTH reconsider and ignore the fucking asshats.

That's out of order. You can blame the OP for shit stirring this situation. This didn't even have to be on these forums. FIC? F**king Idiot C*nts.

Thanks. Much love to you too.

Got anything else you'd like to get off your chest?

I wish death upon you all.

Oh, and please give me all your money as you run away.

Seriously, this is a big attention-grabbing dramafest that personally has gotten to the point of garnering very little sympathy from me. Sure, they're harsh words on good people, and I'm sorry people got hurt, but it's freaking words. It's just mean things. It's times like these you turn to your friends and lean on them.

*munches some popcorn* I don't know about you guys, but I'm just happy I'm getting a lot of now-rare collectables!

((In all honesty, this post was written with a lot of sarcasm, but still, it's sad that people have to act this way and people take it so damn seriously.))

Amen to that! Two of the finest people to ever grace our community and I very much hope we won't lose either of them. The lynch mob metality that takes hold of people when protecting a friend isn't noble. It's disturbing and very disappointing. Starley deserves much better.

Holy Mary Mother 'a...

<blinks>

Is THAT even enforcable? It's like... <blinks> Good lord. It might be...

I don't even know WHERE to go from there. That's like playing spin the bottle with IP...

"SL skins are art" - LOLOLOL

on a serious note - WTF:
people wishing death to everyone on either side of the issue.
people quiting sl because of it.

the former should take a chill pill. it's a game!
the latter, i hope they rise above it (and put it on mute) and continue to do what they enjoy, and do so well.

No mod is no mod.

I hear people arguing that they should be able to mod no mod items.

Am I missing anything?

Lets just throw away the permission system. Makes sense, right? Because obviously when I bought that camisole last night, the maker granted me the right to GL intercept it and mod it, regardless of how she set the perms.

What a bunch of disingenuous baloney cooked up out of loyalty. You should be ashamed of yourselves, Lordfly, Cristiano, and everyone else defending this, simply because the Midnights are your friends. Check yourselves. Really, check yourselves.

Yes it's wrong of some anonymous twat to say what they said about Torrid dying. And it is also wrong to defend circumvention of the permissions system based upon loyalty.

Should Torrid (and now Starley) leave SL over the comments of idiots? Hell no. If they do they are GIVING THE IDIOTS POWER OVER THEM. Either that or they're fishing for sympathy, which really sucks. OMG DRAHMA!

Grow up people. This is not about loyalty, this is not about dumbasses making absurd and mean comments. This is about finding and working a way around the permissions system to mod an item not intended to be modded. You can talk about fair use, you can talk about Sony, you can talk about Zaphod Beeblebrox for all I care, ITS ABOUT BREAKING THE PERMISSION SYSTEM YOU ALL AGREED TO WHEN YOU SIGNED UP, and nothing else.

Perhaps people misunderstood Torrid and Moo's quote that decried the death wish inflicted on Torrid. The general idea was, death wishes and death threats are bad. They shouldn't have been sent to Torrid and sending them to Starley was just as bad.

I love how you speak out about me without even knowing me. Check your own self, I don't owe anything to you. I have spoken out about this subject long before this current situation - it has nothing to do with loyalty. I believe that there is nothing wrong with modifying something for personal use. My feelings about this go well beyond Second Life, and they are the same here.

The rest of your rant is not even worth responding to.

<looks dryly at the speaker>

I don't know any of the parties involved. Am not friends with them. Do not like/dislike/care about them.

I do not like the way people are treating each other about this. Do not care who started it, do not care who said what, and am simply not worried about them 'quitting'. It is their own choice, and no concern of mine.

As to permissions: I will gladly debate this, as a devil's advocate if need be, until we actually either have answers, or the sun becomes a small lump of coal about the size of your forehead. Whichever comes first.

I give you permission to dislike me now. Do as you will.

Welcome to the mess that is IP rights nowadays. You've got the RIAA suing dead people, old ladies, and 6-year-olds with no evidence they did anything wrong, and they're still allowed to continue. You've got DRM schemes that actually make producs useless or dangerous to the legitimate user but are meaningless to the pirate (i.e. Sony's rootkit, Amazon's UnBox, and Starforce copy protection). And the days where you could see things like "Free to copy for personal use." are gone from even text books for grade schoolers!

It's sad that so few can ruin things for so many.

oops, 485 btw

Well, at least the forums will go down kicking and screaming...