Why does SL allow media theives?

The youtube portion is run without permission of google inc., and the music video's are not legal without the express written consent of the recording artist and record label.

At least the SLCN and america free stuff is legal in it.

but those tv's are just small fry compared to what I was referring to.

I don't understand why you're wasting time arguing with your fellow SL residents here on these forums instead of sending e-mails and making phone calls to the studios who own the movies you're so worried about. It is them and only them who have the power to "do something about it."

Which brings up an interesting point... LL is not an internet service provider, and should not fall under ISP guide lines of ignoring what users do, They must obey Federal and State laws with reguards to the content within, i.e. gambling, underage ... so why is copyright any different? All the major torrent sites are being busted for piracy, just for holding hash tables... what makes SL different? I sign into a site, I click an object, I'm seeing illegal content on my screen.



I didn't bring up DJ's since because even tho most likely most DJs (tho why they call themselves that when they are playlist junkies not DJ's) are using downloaded material, they are not advertising it, nor setting up a shop to sell the music. I'm only discussing those profiting from piracy.

Linden Labs is not providing the content, much like Youtube is not hit with penalties for infringement because they do not vet the content created by users. That is why they are protected. It's simple, till the rights holder tells LL of the infringement... LL can do nothing and should not. It may seem insane, but that is the law. LL can not act without the owner of the rights telling them of the infringement and going through the proper legal procedures.

simple to understand: The only person that can tell LL it is infringement is the ones who own the rights to the movies. They have to go through the proper legal steps to tell LL as well.



Umm... you do realize DJs do profit from the piracy. They are paid to perform in tips and often times a fee for performing a gig. And many offer stream rights for constant radio stations into SL for a fee... so again profiting.

Actually youtube has been sued, and viacom states in there lawsuit they should not have to be policing youtube themselves. But that remains still to be seen how it turns out. On the other hand SL is being sued by Taser right now (filed 2 weeks ago) because with the aquisition of Xstreet, Linden Labs is directly selling material to end users and profiting from it, that violates copyrights, which means they can't hide under the DMCA safe harbor anymore.

*sigh* Its a case of "I paid to watch a movie in SL & got ripped off so now I'm gonna raise a ruckus about it"

hm.... You cant stream youtube in sl??
I have a youtube tv and I use it to watch tutorials while I build, photoshop tutorials etc... So this is against youtubs policy?

I will admitt youtube slams the hammer on music videos featuring the real artists, but there are hundreds of poor quality rips from actual concerts, and for the most part I don't think you are allowed to record this?

Most concerts I attend no cameras are allowed, but if course how can they stop you if your camera is a phone....

anyway..

Since I had a problem with a movie person a few months ago, which they recitified by sending me the movie ad a few more, unfortunantly I was never able to watch them because they did not work....

I'm just curious as to what the OP's interest is that he is making such a huge issue out this.

Which, quite frankly, is none of his business to begin with, unless he has some kind of connection with the entertainment industry RL.

And how bout arresting an entire generation of young people who think its perfectly ok to use p2p file sharing for illegal downloading of music

actually I own over 100 movies from various stores, none have ripped me off. It started off as a mere curiosity of how they get away with it.. and the snide remarks from the people in the forum keep me coming back to see what else has been said.

My interest was peaked after a ceast and desist order came from youtube to me reguarding my player violating there TOS and it grew from there to look into the entire video realm.

It has nothing to do with the content being played, youtube strictly forbids playing there video's outside of the youtube website or it's authorized affiliates in it's terms of service. They have been trying to shut it down, but people quickly find new ways to accomplish it, or in the case of half the youtube tv makers fake they are doing it and in the background use youtubemp4 and let the chinese find the loopholes.

wrong. They have the same liability as ebay on counterfeit items. It is still the original right's owner job to look for them and bring them to the attention of LL through the proper legal routes.

They did not create the contents, only offer the sale through a commission fee.

So why do you support media thieves and allow them to prosper if it bothers you?

ding! In this case they went after the right person through the proper channels.

It wasn't LL they went after because they were not in violation, it was you.

It wasn't LL that went looking it was them.

Not to mention that he's an apostrophe abuser. He's probably high as a kite on misplaced pixels and will start using quotes for emphasis next.

Except my player had nothing to do with SL. it was an a download website that used the same methods as the old players in SL to get the video.

But they did not go after the hosting company they went after the person that created the conent that infringed their rights (and in this case TOS)

So same deal, you don't go after LL for the actions of content creators. You go after the creators.

Now if LL worked like There and everything had to be cleared by corporate then you could go after LL.

But LL has no control over what is created, it responds to complaints by legit rights owners as it should by law.