Violation or Not?

I'd much prefer that people take the time to learn about courtesy, decency, and how not to be an arrogant snob.. before going into business.

Good move. I was going to suggest exactly that.

So to rap this up, here is the final response from the other party;

"[13:00] Name: thanks for removing them."

Sorry that isn't right. In June U.S. District Court Judge S. James Otero ruled "that the promo CDs are gifts distributed by UMG, as they are mailed free and unsolicited to thousands of people without any expectation or intention of their return. The first sale doctrine says that once the copyright owner sells or gives away a copy of a CD, DVD, or book, the recipient is entitled to resell that copy without further permission."

Note last sentence.

This is a great way to handle it if you want to walk away the clear winner of the who's got class competition.



Still quite classy.

It seems that the lucky chair owner concluded that Bargain's wife was using the lucky chair as a source of inventory for her own business.

This all reminds me that I have a Lucky Chair in my inventory that I need to sell at my next yard sale.

I wonder if I can put my Lucky Chair inside my Lucky Chair and give it away?

I was thinking about selling my truck because it uses so much gas, but I got a nasty letter from Chevrolet telling me that I'd better not violate their copyright by selling their truck to someone else.

Or...wait...that never happened.

At any rate, bargain, I think your wife did the right thing from the standpoint of just avoiding a hassle. She was well within her rights to tell this person to sod off and she wasn't doing anything unethical, but why get all excited over the equivalent of maybe $2.00US? It's just not worth dealing with this PITA business owner.

If you work it right, you can use your lucky chair to give away a lucky chair that gives away lucky chairs...

LMAO



Well my wife had a few choice words beyond what I suggested she write but in the end she agreed with me and hell, thats gotta be worth something

I hesitated responding to Kitty's post, because I thought that particular issue was unsettled and in litigation. I'll have to search for and read that opinion.

And before I read it, I can already see that the key to it was that the content in that case was distributed "unsolicited."

One is only bound by a license to which one agrees. Agreement can be something as simple and easy as an act: "By taking this item, you agree to the licensing terms that go with it." On the other hand, it is no good to say, "Now that you have the item, you have to abide by the licensing terms you didn't know prior to receiving the item."

I suspect the outcome is somewhat different if, instead of the CDs being mailed unsolicited, the CDs were offered at a promotional party, with the person handing them out saying, "Don't take this from me unless you agree not to resell it or give it away."

So it still is true that licensing rights have an impact upon whether an item can be redistributed. But it has to be a valid license, and an after-the-fact license isn't valid.

(And that may not be thet last case we see on the issue anyway. In the back of my mind, it seems that it has been a live and evolving legal issue.)

So out of curiosity, how do textures fit into all of this?

Textures need at *least* copy/transfer permissions in order to be effectively used by content creators who purchase them for their own products. Lots and lots of discussion about this here in the forum. Touchy subject, really exposes weaknesses in the current permissions system.

Right, and we don't need to go there in this thread but it seems textures are treated differently in SL. I mean, I believe you can be warned if not banned for reselling textures yet not so much with other items.

However, printing such a notice on the copy may or may not constitute a valid license, depending on other circumstances. There was a recent case involving this issue. See http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/13/186208

As far as I know, Linden Lab will not involve themselves in texture reselling disputes, at least in the usual disciplinary fashion. The owner's only recourse is to use DMCA, and have Linden Lab remove the offending content. (they have no choice upon receipt of a proper DMCA claim) Yeah. It gets ugly, and it's alot of he said/she said.

From a copyright standpoint, your initial question was easy when there was no copy of the item, and no license telling you what you could or couldn't do.

To a certain theoretical extent, a texture would be no different.

However, in practical use, it's just about impossible to use a texture without making a copy of it. Textures, by their nature, just don't exist unless they are copyable.

When you have a texture in your inventory, and you apply it to a surface, you've made a copy of that texture on the surface. I know as a technical matter, the surface of an object links back to a certain unique database identifier of the texture. But if I can look at one picture and see it in two places, that is copying. And you cannot copy it without some sort of license to copy it (explicit or implied), unless it's public domain.

Theoretically, you could transfer the no-copy texture to someone else if you had made no copies, and were not restricted by a license. In practical terms, it would be a rare case where you'd have an SL texture pass through your hands without copying, or without a license to its use existing.

Does it create a precedent though, or is it just a ruling based on those specific details (where it concerns only CDs, DVDs or books, or even more narrowly when they're mailed unsollicited)?

If you look at DRM'ed digital content specifically, in some cases the content is restricted to one specific individual/puter and resale would be practically impossible. So either you're allowed to circumvent the DRM in order to resell (obviously deleting the copy you have and selling it only once), or you agreed to forego the right to resell what you bought/accepted which was the whole point of the analogy.

I am very glad the case is closed as far as you are concerned, but here is my reason for the idea of sending them back.

First off: The creator apparently didn't want them resold, even though there was no notice for such and the transfer perm was checked. To prevent the temptation of selling them again, I'd have simply sent them back to them, to take up their inventory space or to send on to someone else as they see fit.

Second: This is also a very subtle way of telling them that while you were grateful for the lucky chair, you will not be doing any future business with due to their entirely threatening and arrogant manner. There were far better ways to approach this, but this person would rather go for the jackass's approach and bray as loudly as they can.

It's really not that hard to say, "I've noticed you have some of my lucky chair items for sale. I made those items to give away and really hate to see them for sale at any price other than L$0. I realize that they have transfer permissions, but I really hope you'd consider giving them away rather than selling them in this manner." Or something along that lines, to encourage the idea of passing on the joy and further enticing more business.

That being said, returning the items also says that you will not be passing on the items to another potential customer. In fact, you'll be recommending that they steer clear of the creator. A note along with the return is merely a formality in case they don't get subtle hints. Some people do require cluex4's to help them along

Only an idiot would think we were going back there to shop again, lol.

But your way works to Raudf

*giggle*



I'd kind of like to sell textures myself but as far as I know there is only the honor system to keep others from copying and reselling them.

I do sell textures, some transfer, most not just because I know people will resell them!

It's a little harder sale that way but better then joe blow reselling them for a buck, you know.

Yeah I can see it's a problem...

Why is this even an issue?



Hasn't anyone ever heard of a yard sale?!?!

Some people are just ridiculous.

In this case, Augusto (the defendant in the case, UMG was the plaintiff) was selling on eBay promotional CDs he bought from secondhand stores. UMG sued him for copyright infringement,

Following is a URL to an EFF article about the case and a URL to Judge Otero's order:

[URL}http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/06/11[/URL]

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/umg_v_augusto/LA07CV03106SJO-O.pdf

It is not a ToS violation. If you are reselling items that she normally sells in her store, I don't see any more problem than if you resold stuff that you simply had in your inventory as if you were having a yard sale. If you are reselling her freebies, then what you are doing is a little sleezy.