Brick Back Torrid Midnight!

It's true I cannot mod the texture within SL.

I can't rip my cd into mp3's without outiside software either, nor was I given express permission to do so. Or tape a ballgame. Or cut the poster without scissors.

I can't believe this has gotten to this point, people making death threats, designers leaving over what amounts to hemming a dress you bought.

This isn't what you content creators need to worry about. Do you think putting eyeliner on a skin you bought is the road to hell and texture theft? WTF?

Like there hasn't been enough drama in SL recently, lol.

I don't dislike you at all Foolish, I agree wholeheartedly about your concerns with free speech. I read all your posts. I just see that LL put these permissions in place as 'boundaries' to our world. To use a third party program to bypass these boundaries is not in the spirit of SL in my opinion.

They might cite this part of the SL TOS:



This theoretically grants ALL SECOND LIFE USERS basic use rights to ALL creations in Second Life -- regardless of the no-mod, no-copy control mechanisms put in place by Linden Lab.

Many people are quoting "fair use" which is not the subject at hand. Fair use provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work.

What we are talking about is the right of a customer that buys a copy of an SL item to do what they wish with it for their own personal enjoyment.

I second this

The "knowing me" part says it all really. Thanks for proving my point. So I should have no opinion or be allowed one because I don't know you? Who said you owed me anything? I surely didn't, but thanks for contradicting yourself by gracing me with a reply.

I don't care about "beyond Second Life". Second Life has a permissions sytem. It was broken. Worse yet, by a friend. Then she lied about it. Now you're defending that. A friend would have asked. I know of a well known clothing designer in SL who added things to someone's skins. Guess what? SHE ASKED THE MAKER FIRST. Then guess what? It was no big deal, the maker said yes glady, as Lost may well have done. She didn't GL intercept, she didnt lie. She did the unthinkable, she did the right thing, and asked her friend if she could. If people of your mindset (I am not convinced it is actually your mindset as much as it is loyalty to old friends) had your way, it would be a free for all, and we may as well throw away the permissions sytem.

Are you for or against the permissions system Crsitiano? Don't tell me stuff about "beyond SL", we are dealing with SL and it's rules here. Just answer the question.

The thing is that it's not their place as content creators to dictate those terms. The system is there to do things they aren't allowed to keep everyone from doing, and I'm perfectly legal using any means to have the rights granted to me be exersized.



Um, last I checked, I'm still abiding by the rules governing SL, and not taking a thing from SL. I *am*, on the other hand, taking textures from *my* graphics card and putting them on *my* hard drive of things that *I* have spent *my* money to buy.

Sorry sweetie, but in order to circumvent this, SL would have to do a VERY big update/rewrite to their rendering engine. Given the pace of work at getting anything major added, I think the system is here to stay as is.

The real thing will be when someone finally decides to sue someone else for it.

(BTW, I'm so making a parody derivative skin from others that has "Sue Me" written all over it now, and I'm so doing it without permission.)

I already stated fair use is not what this is about.

As for the rest of your post, let's just do away with the permissions system and the IP rights LL grants us. Sound cool?

Wooooohooo! I am going shopping! My own kind of shopping though, where I stand at clubs and GL intercept everyones clothes. Then I will go to Barnesworth's place and rip out his homes to object files and then reimport them into SL!

I feel so "right" today.

In other words, I'm hacking SL, you can't do anything about it, fuck you.

Does either your cd, the tv show transmission or your poster come with clearly stated "the copyright holder does not permit you to copy/modify this item, including copying/modification for personal use"?

Because it's what it boils down to, clear statement of condition of purchase. Some SL items come with plainly stated limitations attached to them. You know these conditions beforehand. If you don't agree with these conditions, no one forces you to purchase item in question, there's plenty alternatives out there.

How simpler does it have to get? ^^;

Actually, Sunspot, I'm suggesting that right now that is exactly how the TOS is written unless there is another section precluding people from bypassing the rights system in direct relationship to IP rights. I can't find it if it is in there.

If were a skin or clothes designer I'd be looking for other business opportunities right now!

My point about you not knowing me is you are stating why I am doing something, without knowing anything about me. My opinion about this had nothing to do about loyalty. I didn't contradict myself - your opinion on whether or not I should check myself is meaningless to me - you do not know me or have any influence over me.



Congratulations on your use of bold and all caps for empahsis. I did not defend Mistress' lying about it - you obviously didn't read the entire thread, but why bother when you can just attribute shit to people? I am so happy you know a well known designer who asked permissions, that doesn't change how I feel. Torrid apologized profusely SEVERAL MONTHS AGO and settled the issue with Lost, but was dragged into this and then beaten up over something I do not think is a big deal.

Why do you keep saying my mindset is about loyalty? My feelings about it stem from my belief that once purchased, you should be able to modify an item. I buy music all the time from iTunes, and have no problem whatsoever ripping the DRM off of it. I am not distributing the music, I just don't like having it locked into being only able to be played on an iPod, which I refuse to buy.



Ah so we are to the "You're either with us, or you support terrorists" portion of our argument. Nice! I think that the current permissions system is extremely flawed and creates some very onerous situations - for example, the no transfer permission especially. If I purchase something and I am no longer using it, I should be able to transfer it to someone else.

I do not support the redistribution or sale of other people's content. I know you try to lump it altogether, but it is not the same thing. I do not have a problem with the circumvention of permissions for personal modification of items purchased. I do have a problem with someone reselling the work of others, or distributing copies of it.

Well damn, then you're "right" to do it I guess. Open GL season!

All Hail the TOS which renders the permissions system null and void. Yippy skippy! Conscience? We don't need no steenking conscience.

*quietly wonders if the people supporting this would be so supportive if it were their creations in question*

In other words your argument is based on the assertion that you are above the law.

I'd like to know what we're losing with Torrid leaving?
Her being a great designer aside...is MC gonna go bye bye too?

I'm not asking because I feel we're not losing much by it. On the contrary. I just think someone should realy spell it out so those who read this will know what the real "impact" of this will be on the rest of us who enjoyed Torrid's contributions to the community.

I think it's a complete fucking shame something this seemingly trivial has ever been allowed to get this out of hand.

If nothing else, because of this, I find my self inclined never to buy from those designers who had a hand in making threats and escalating this situation to dip-shit proportions.

To those same people I would advise they get a life, get a grip and get a real job. Obviously they are taking themselves and their virtual assets entirely too seriously.

Again, you are lumping in redistribution and theft of content with modification of an item that has been legitimately purchased. That is not the same thing, no matter how you try to blur the lines.

I am supportive of this, and people can hack my things all day long and twice til tuesday...

Of course, I wasn't stupid and made SL my primary source of income either.

I said what I have to say here
and it's just my OPINION, I am entitled to that...
but I'll add one thing: to the two women who are now taking a break or maybe even leaving SL completely- stop acting like Diva's, be the strong women you are and move ON!

Actually, Chip, I burn the CD, which is allowed by iTunes, and then make MP3 files from them without the DRM on them. Also not illegal.

Sunspot, I'm not suggesting that Second Life should become a free-for-all environment. I think Second Life is an awesome experiment in immersive 3-D environments mainly for its user created world.

I guess why I'm participating in this thread is because I'm concerned that we all need to better understand exactly what LL has outlined in the way of IP rights.

I just found another interesting angle one could take in the TOS:



This asserts that individual users never actually "own" what they "pay" for in their inventory. Instead LL is leasing it to us until which time they decide we're not worthy of access to our account.

This is no doubt a real mess. And there seems to be quite a discrepency between what users believe to be true about their inventories and the reality we agreed to by accepting the TOS.

Actually no; as the copyright holder the content creator can dictate terms of reproduction, modification and distribution of their creation. There's likely exception of first sale right here, which grants you permission to sell the copy of item... something SL permission system doesn't include. but these other aspects, that's exactly what the permission system in its current form was modeled after, it seems.

Indeed. That was a good find, Johnny, and it supports my argument that "fair use"in this context is bogus and based on false assumptions.

Guess that sums up your argument. Stupid people who rely on a daft game that the rules can be hacked deserve all they get.

Like you said however, this can be interpreted ten ways to Sunday. For example, while ToS states by uploading content you grant the 'right of use' to all users of the service. It does not however state _terms_ for such use, thus it's logical to conclude these particular terms are up to discretion of creator on case-by-case basis, and set with item permission system. o.O

You are correct about a copyright holder being allowed to dictate terms of reproduction, modification, and distribution of their creation.

BUT!

When you agree to the Terms of Service, you agree to reproduction, modification and distribution as follows: