That's the last time I bother trying to help a creator with identifying stolen conten

I need to read the DMCA. If Linden Lab is faithfully following the law, then the law is nonsensical above even my cynical expectations.

Well, yes, it is. The normal use of a copiable vehicle is what matters... the person who receives the vehicle has no way of knowing the intent except as expressed in the vehicle.

Edit... actually, if you stick to the letter of the law, Linden Lab is the only ones licensed to copy or transfer products even if they ARE copiable or transferrable, because the ToS grants LL a license to the product, but the guy who buys it doesn't get one unless the original creator chooses to grant one explicitly

They need to get that competence.

The original creator may have sent on the correct information (what you sent him/her) to LL and then it was Linden-ized in the vast gaping abyss that is Linden screw up land.

You deserve a big "thank you" for what you did to inform the creator and since you didn't get one yet, THANKS!

The intent of the creator is what matters. The person would still be guilty of infringement but would have the defense of innocent infringement to limit damages. It doesn't necessarily alleviate them from liability as shown in numerous RIAA copyright infringement claims against innocent infringement.

How does a closer parallel than downloading music work in RL? Someone is caught selling counterfeit designer goods on eBay. He, obviously, faces not only criminal prosecution but, quite possibly, civil action as well.

However, what civil action do you say a purchaser of his counterfeit goods might in theory face should Gucci or Rolex, or whoever, decide to bring one (unless the purchaser decided to re-sell them, of course)?

The intent of the creator is irrelevant to US law. US copyright law does not recognize moral rights of creators.

Copies that are made as part of the normal use of a product are not infringement. If I buy a track from Amazon, every time I play it I'm making dozens of copies of the music inside my computer. Those are *normal use* of a music track. If the owner has a thing against Apple and Microsoft and doesn't want me to copy the track to a Zune or iPod, tough. Those copies aren't infringement. If I downloaded the track from Bittorrent but I'm a leech so I'm not sharing any of my own tracks, then those copies are *still* not infringement. If I give someone else a copy, that's infringement, whether I bought it from Amazon or downloaded it from Bittorrent.

Rezzing a copy of an object you bought, to use it normally, is not infringement. Even if the guy you bought it from didn't have the right to sell it.

Sassy not knowing the parties involved I cant say the following scenario IS what happened but please consider it.

If the creator you sent the notecard to is not a native English speaker it is likely he/she ran it through a translator like google. Having had to do that a few time myself I can tell you it is not uncommon for the translator to muck things up so badly that the meaning is completely reversed.

In Which case he/she might have thought someone was reporting you to him. He then didn't check it out just sent in the AR and we know well that LL doesn't take time to check things.

Just and alternate possibility.

THe lindens have very little leeway with DMCA requests, because they consider themselves a common carrier, they can take little or no action besides that which is requested by the copyright holder. Specifically, theyre not allowed to use their best judgement or make conclusions about infringement, they have to quickly and as completely as possible remove the potentially infringing items.

LL has no say in how this process works, they've retained legal counsel to tell them the best way to comply.. and noone here is going to get that changed unless theyre a lawyer specialising in copyright law.

If their legal counsel is telling them that possessing a copy of an infringing object makes one guilty of infringement then they need new legal counsel.

You're using a false analogy. Knockoffs do not constitute copyright infringement, they are trademark infringement.

I wasn't referring to intent as a moral right, I was referring to whether the creator approved someone else putting the content out there in that form. Without it, there is still copyright infringement by the purchaser.
Those are all licensed distributors. If you download from an unlicensed distributor then you've committed copyright infringement even if you are unaware that the distributor was unlicensed. Which is why statements likeandare simply not true. Don't confuse lack of prosecution by copyright holders for downloading content from unauthorized sources as non-infringement. It is is simply not practical for them to do so en masse, but selective prosecution is done and the claims are upheld, although damages are adjusted if the infringement is innocent infringement.

I don't know what a gratuitous, generalized cheap shot taken at an entire nation's law enforcement profession adds to this topic, but if you felt you had to.........

Yeah...leave the America-bashing to the Americans!

Doesn't this depend, first, on where you are -- so we know which country's copyright laws we're talking about -- and second, exactly what's been done? Seems to me there's a distinction between knowingly downloading music to which you know you have no right and innocently buying content from someone who's passing off unauthorized copies of something under his own name.

Let's take a RL example. I see that, earlier this year, the BBC reported that http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8175974.stm
In the event that the case is resolved in Mr Larrikin's favour, the band are clearly going to face damages.

What, however, do you say would be the legal remedies -- should he choose to pursue them -- available to Mr Larrikin against people who bought copies, in good faith, of "Down Under"?

And the point is that LL shouldn't have been frowning. They should have been firm but considerate. They could have said "your copy wasn't licensed."

A bloke named Larrikin? In Australia? No wonder he turned to legalized extortion for a living.

Sadly, this sounds like a communication breakdown with all parties involved.

If I am correct in assuming that the original creator was not the same individual selling the full permissions item, then...

1. In the creator's case, the first mistake was using the Ferrari brand name if they didn't have permission. Expect trouble every time when doing something like that. The second mistake was not interviewing Sassy, and explaining the situation (so Sassy could have been prepared for LL's response) before filing a DMCA notice.

2. In Sassy's case, I think your one mistake was in buying the item in question before communicating your concerns. Comply with the DMCA notice. DON'T file a counterclaim! All you really need to do is delete the item and any other instances of it, and that's it. You're done with this issue.

I believe the majority of the burden (of communicating) rests with the content creator. Any content creator that doesn't offer a clear path of communication is doing a disservice to the legitimacy and success of their business. It's not that hard to post an email address in a profile and make it clearly visible. Note cards are a waste of everyones time.

The customer is really the catalyst in this process. Without their initial communication nothing happens involving IP infringement unless another customer comes along to point out the same problem. Without a customer's input problems like this only get worse. No one benefits in the long run, not even thieves.

Linden Lab is caught between a rock and a hard spot with many DMCA notices. Undeniably, this is their own doing. Unfortunately, they can not backtrack once it is set in motion. They have to act. This looks like such a case. The DMCA notice did nothing to solve the issue. It only served to piss people off and fuel a growing fire, yet Linden Lab HAD to act based on their current policy.

In this case, buying a full permissions item left Sassy open to having a DMCA notice filed against him/her because it is, in essence, as good as possessing the original item. The creator has no way of knowing what his/her intentions are (to sell it, give copies away, delete it), or effectively follow up with policing it. The creator has no choice but to file a DMCA notice to enlist Linden Labs' help in removing it.

Linden Lab usually asks for coordinates to a vendor or item location before they get themselves involved in filing DMCA notices. This was the policy the last time I checked. Maybe the policy has changed, and they are now sophisticated enough to delete all instances of an infringing item regardless of name, owner, or asset allocation (a tall order). Regardless, Sassy's note card is what provided the trace back to at least ONE infringing item. Linden Lab was then obligated to act upon at least that.

If one does not want to shoot one's self in the foot...

Note to all customers:

DON'T BUY OR ACCEPT FULL PERMISSION ITEMS THAT APPEAR TO BE INFRINGING UPON IP RIGHTS!

Note to all creators:

DON'T CREATE ITEMS THAT MAY BE INFRINGING UPON IP RIGHTS!

...It's pretty simple.

This!

That is just not right! I am sorry that this happened to you. If someone contacted me about one of my creations being stolen I would be very grateful. I would even contact SL on your behalf.