removals@lindenlab.com has bit my butt

Hi all,

I guess that some of you know my (RL) sister Jannae. I am way more low key in SL. I have a job in security where I make a few hundred $L per week, and live in a $L1 per week apartment (tastefully decorated with some of Arcadia Asylum's furniture). I donate a bit to charities, and shop.

I bought an AO hud on Xstreet ( a freebee to be sure) and the next thing that I know, LL is theatening me.

Dear Jalissa Karas: Linden Lab has received notification from a copyright owner, or its authorized agent, that you have infringed one or more copyrighted works in the Second Life environment. The notification identified the following allegedly infringing work(s): Description of Work(s):[FhangV] AO collection (and all animations within) Location of Work(s):Your Inventory Linden Lab respects the rights of both Second Life residents and copyright owners. In compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 512, we ask that you remove or disable access to the above-identified work(s) from all locations including your inventory. If you do not do so within two business days, please be aware that Linden Lab intends to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the allegedly infringing work(s). If you believe that you did not infringe another’s copyright, or that removal of the above-identified work(s) was by mistake or misidentification, you may have the work(s) reinstated by submitting a sworn counter-notification. To be effective, a counter-notification must be in writing and contain the information identified in our DMCA Policy under the heading “To File A Counter-Notification,” located at http://secondlife.com/corporate/dmca.php. Please be aware that if you submit a counter-notification containing the required information, Linden Lab will forward your counter-notification, including your name, address, telephone number, and any other contact information that you provide, to the copyright claimant. We will also advise the claimant that we will reinstate the removed work(s) in ten (10) business days unless we receive notice that the claimant has filed a court action seeking an order to restrain you from engaging in infringing activity related to the work(s). Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Linden Lab

OK, I deleted the content. My problem is that I bought the damned thing from the "official" online store of Linden Labs. Instead of a threat, perhaps an apology for passing me stolen content would have been more appropriate.

Anyways, I responded to the email.

Hello Linden Labs,

I have deleted these "works" from my inventory. I purchased them for $L0 from your official Xstreet site. You then send me a threatening message! Who's at fault here? In good faith I took these items into inventory from a shopping site operated by you. I would believe that you owe me an apology for foisting stolen content on me (of course I would have no idea that the content was stolen), then threatening me for accepting the offer.

How are we to know what is legal content? One would expect that shopping on the official Linden Lab site would be a safe experience. Rather than a threat, an apology and a request to delete the content would seem to be a more appropriate response on your part.

I expect that the well known, heavy handed LL response will now fall upon me for daring to speak up over this matter.

Sincerely,
Jalissa Karas

This madness must stop. We should not have to live our second lives in fear.

no matter how right you are, and you are, nothing will change. i'm sorry this happened to you.

This how ever is how they like it.
Now I would think that Linden Lab selling stolen content would be in violation of the law and I'm pretty sure it doesnt matter if they know they are selling stolen content.. and they do btw...

Sorry Jalissa your right its gone 100% nuts... but this is how Linden Lab handles its customers and they have no willingness or need or want to change all I can tell ya is never put money into Second Life and dont recomend it to anyone ya know in Real Life. I dont think youd want family and friends treated like that

You aren't the only person that happened to either...I was reading something across the street about someone else who got the same letter.

What a funny thing for them to call it - it sounds like they've gone into the furniture moving business.

I would've been upset, too.

Thank you all. Yes, I am upset. I'll get over it (I hope), but I'm the kind that hates getting in trouble. My sister has all the brass. For myself, I'm a bit too sensitive for my own good.

And they will move your furniture right out of your inventory if they feel like it. Even after they got a piece of the price that you paid for it.

This sort of brain dead action by LL is pure 100% card-carrying Vogon.

It's like they send out police on patrol with nothing but thermonuclear devices with which to manage any and all situations.
Bank robbery? BOOM!
Cat stuck up a tree? BOOM!
Someone accidentally drops a wrapper? BOOM!
Lost child? BOOM!

I'm totally gabberflasted over this! You bought an item from XStreet and the creator responds by filing a DMCA against you? What kind of batshit crazy, boneheaded freakoid *does* such a thing? Were I you, I'd head right back to the items listing, give them the lowest rating and write a review describing what's happened.

ETA: There's no "[FhangV] AO collection" listed on as of this morning... A victim of the new freebie policy (speaking of boneheaded moves) perhaps?

Makes me wonder if the creator has decided to force LL to remove his freebies from SL completely.

Yes I read that too here http://shoppingcartdisco.com/?p=5857
Same item in question also.

I think the point is that the OP bought what turns out to be a ripped copy from someone who wasn't the creator.

Out of interest, is the item still listed on XStreet?

I find it strange the customers of the item are having a DMCA filed on them, the original creator couldn't know the names of purchasers.

I just got back from reading the Shopping Cart Disco link above, and that does appear to be the case.

Once again LL proves that it excells at screwing up wet dreams.

I think it must go something like this: someone makes an illegal copy of something and distributes it. The original creator finds out about it and is a bit upset. They tell LL about the illegal copies that LL are distributing through xstreet using a formal legal procedure called a DCMA. LL react as prescribed by US law and remove the illegal copies.

I don't know if LL's "remove first, ask questions later" response is also required by law or merely an over-cautious over-reaction. If the OP can show that the stuff she got is not stolen property she can file a counter-notification as described in LL's letter.

Unfortunately the RL adage that "if it looks too good to be true it probably isn't true" is less appropriate in SL where high quality goods are regularly given away for free by their creators.

There is a bright side here: at least the OP didn't actually pay anything for the stuff.

The DCMA is filed on Linden Lab, and they DO know who's got the illegal copies.

The listing is gone from there.

The animator whose stuff was ripped has had a *lot* of things ripped, and is very likely to be involved with the new DMCA system LL has been testing. The maker wouldn't need to know who bought copies of the counterfeits, LL should have a record of that.

Please understand that I'm no great fan of LL's methods, but what's happened here is that LL have screwed up the wet dreams of the guy who ripped and distributed the thing - as they are required to by law, and it's that guy who's screwed up the wet dreams of the people who bought the suff from him.

There's nothing in the law that says the LL have to go charging in with flame-throwers blazing, and treat patently innocent people as if they were criminals.
Of course LL can see who has obtained the items from Xstreet. Like Duh! How they acquire the ripped item? They bought it on LL's own market place. Very suspicious behaviour!

Any reasonable person would drop the buyer of the ripped item a polite note.
Only a Vogon or LL would send the sort of communication that the OP received. It's a freaking insane way to behave in the circumstances.

This ^

There is no reason, none, for LL's behavior towards people who thought they were purchasing legit items from a trusted LL approved source.

Instead of accusing purchasers of being content thieves, how about going for the polite approach?

"Dear Purchaser,

Recently, we received a DMCA for an item you purchased. We're requesting that you delete said item from your inventory before we... blahblahblah inert legalese here."

Most people support content creators and will delete the items the moment the words DMCA come into play.

LL is renowned for going fly hunting with an elephant gun. Just one of these days, LL's gonna shoot their own foot off in the process...

I entirely agree that LL appear to be lacking essential communication skills. Perhaps they should get Torley Linden to record a video explaining how and why they must react to a DMCA, and include a link to this in the email they send to the victims of a ripping scam.

Yes, I certainly am not arguing that I want to keep stolen goods. As was pointed out, it cost me nothing as well. However, if the item did cost a substantial amount of $L, it is my understanding that LL would take a percentage for the sale via Xstreet. In cases like this, what do they do with their profits gained through the sale of stolen content?

I guess that I am just upset with the tone of the message. How is one to know who made all of the bits in something that they buy anyway? It should be reasonable for one to assume that purchases from the LL official shopping site are safe.

What's happened here is that Linden Lab has willfully declared that the recipient of the product in question is in fact a criminal who has illegally copied somebody else's product.



This is far from Linden Lab acting as required to by law. She has not infringed another's copyright, somebody else did that. This is not at all in keeping with the DMCA by any means, nor is she even able to provide the necessary information to file a valid counter-claim.

If you buy a pair of counterfeit Reebok tennis shoes from the back of a van parked in some dark alley somewhere in real life, are you taken to court and charged as the person who created that illegal copy of those Reeboks? Of course you aren't. You haven't done anything of the sort.

So to insist that Linden Lab pressing those same virtual charges in Second Life is a case of them properly complying with the law is bunk.

In that case, I think you could be taken to court as a lawbreaker. I think that the fact that you should reasonably have known that there was something iffy about the shoes, would be treated as breaking the law.

In this case, however, there was no possibility of reasonably knowing that there was something iffy about the AO. It was bought in LL's own marketplace. I'd be inclined to tell LL to piss off - and delete the item, of course.

I suspect that if LL were to investigate the provenance of every item put up for sale on xstreet they'd need to add a few "9"s to their proposed listing fees.

The DMCA does require "remove first". The service provider (LL in this case) is not expected or even allowed to ask questions. If the person who the DMCA was filed against chooses to file the DMCA response paperwork, the service provider must restore the content, no questions asked. At that point, the service provider is no longer involved. The original complainant can choose to pursue the matter further in court, which is why the service provider must provide the real-life identity of the person filing the challenge. I don't remember if there is also a requirement to give the challenger the complainant's identity, or if that only happens if the complainant goes to court.

Both the original complaint and the challenge are legal documents, and the people who file them are subject to perjury charges if they make false claims on them.

In this case, LL was required to remove all copies of the offending content from their servers, and can only restore it if someone claiming to own the copyright (or a license from the owner) files the DMCA challenge.

That said, they should not be sending a message suggesting the purchaser of an item is the subject of the DMCA complaint. They should be sending a message explaining that they had to remove all copies of the content, including from purchasers' inventories and inworld, due to a DMCA complaint against the seller.

But LL isn't famous for putting a lot of thought into their communications with customers. Poorly written, inaccurate, and insulting form letters seem to be standard operating procedure for them.