Can a content creator restrict...

What about the EULA on X-Flight? Should it have been ignored?

Note that when it was discovered Linden freebies were using X-Flight against the EULA, Linden Labs removed the content.

O rly?

http://www.ticketnews.com/Minnesota-Repeals-Scalping-Law9375

And LL's consistency is universally well known - isn't it?

As for your first question - if it was being distributed with perms set so that someone could do something they were not supposed to then yes, I think the perms should have taken precedence, unless it was an LL glitch that led to the situation, then LL should have fixed the perms.

Anyway the conversation was about EULAs you cannot see before buying the item.

It was full perm, as is Franimation Overrider, and my own Cyberflight. All have licenses. X-Flight's was that it was for members of the Kazenojiin only, Franimation overrider is GPL, and Cyberflight is BSDL.

Linden Labs does not own the content, it licenses it, so Linden Labs is not even in a position to say whether EULAs are enforceable or not... only the content owner and the courts have a say in that.

Apples and oranges, scripts are not being talked about here, neither are textures. It is things that are primarily prim built that even without scripts serve a purpose which were being discussed.
Yes LL licenses the content, read here:



Especially the last part - it can be interpreted that LL expects you to sell your creations primarily under the permission system as part of the mandatory license rights, forbearances, etc.

Also in any law there provisions for rights of fair use that sometimes trump creators EULAs. It is certainly not clear where this falls with regards to LL and content at all.

I'm pretty sure she means me. I sell my games under a licensing system. I've designed it so that I think it's helpful for everyone involved.

I have a full explanation of the system on my website: http://playprocyon.com/sl/faq/asset

Even if the law isn't technically repealed, but it's unenforceable, it essentially no longer practically exists - like all those laws Katheryne mentioned. People love to dig in old law books and find silliness like that, and claim that because they were never technically repealed those laws are "still in force/on the books", as if to make fun of the various municipal or state governments that "keep" them. But no, those laws are simply no longer enforced.

I agree completely Dakota, however I didn't need to even argue about the ones that are technically repealed as there are enough examples of ones that have been unequivocally repealed as well

No.

It's all digital content. Regardless of how Linden Labs describes it, or what metaphors seem appropriate, the DMCA applies... not laws applied to physical property.

If that was the case then there would be nothing wrong with buying full-perm building tools such as animations and reselling them as you got them, regardless of any statements made by the creator in their store. But Linden Labs has removed content like that, just as they've removed copybotted stuff.

Absolutely, but fair use is a much narrower exception than most people think. Fair use doesn't mean "so long as it's in your home, you're legal".

On the other hand, I'm not saying that the law is or SHOULD step in here, I'm just saying that the idea that you can apply a EULA to something you build in second life isn't as completely wack as you seem to be implying.

Sorry I think maybe I read you wrong. What I thought you were asking was if there was a way a content creator could actually limit how many copies you could rezz in world. Limit it so you actually couldnt rezz more than the number of licences you purchased. And I know of a maker that does limit this.

When you rezz one of his products, it checks if you have a license, and if you dont the product will derezz itself. He does this for his games. You can buy as many licenses as you like, and whenever you rezz a new game, it will check with a server you are allowed. The handy thing is that if the game breaks or get lost, you just rezz a new one (cause your license isnt lost).

And I see Rifkin has replied. I did mean him
But I see now that I might have misunderstod what you asked.

I am o.k. with a script enforced license. Because i would NEVER BUY such a thing, EVER that limited how many copies of a COPIABLE item i can have rezzed.

It is just another way for a person to charge you two, three, four or more times just to rez something they didnt want to make NO COPY.

It call comes down to the almighty greed inducing dollar.

And i have purchased scripted things that do have a usage # License.

They have their purpose. And the license is enforced through programming, which for the product -a group invite bot- it seems fair since that is actually software i am running.

I find this attitude very common in the modern era - and actually quite worrying.

Since they _could_ have made it "no copy", why is it any more greedy for them not to set the "no copy" flag but just ask you not to make copies?

Typically it isn't about greed at all.. it's about the modern attitude that all crimes should be impossible, and therefore, there should never be a need to think about whether an action is a crime or not before doing it. Sadly, the modern world enforces this in two ways: by having many crimes made impossible (via physical security, DRM, etc); and by often rewarding people who do borderline-criminal actions without thinking them through (Bloodlines).



That's interesting - it can't possibly report that an item broke (if a script breaks then.. it breaks) so I wonder how it knows the copy is gone? Maybe some kind of check on a new rez?

One way I can think of to code this would require an RL database... when you rez it, it would 'call home' and register itself, maybe with it's UUID since that would change every time it's rezzed. Then every time it's used it would 'call home' again with it's uuid and get a response back that it's ok to use. So if you had two rezzed, the old one would stop working because the license is shifted to the new UUID. It'd require http calls and responses so disruptions to that would cause it to not work (or be slow) till things were sorted out.

Personally, I originally made stuff no-mod/no-copy (that's the SL default after all), but it wasn't long before I realized that this was not the right style for me. Everything I make now is mod-copy, and any older items I have, I change to modcopy when I update them. It's how I like to buy, so I reckon it's how I ought to sell. And any 'lost sales' that result from someone buying something once then rezzing a hundred times, are offset by the 'added exposure' of having my work out there a hundred times for people to see.

-Atashi

I would never buy a product inside SL that depended on the continued support of something outside SL to keep working, unless the point of the product was access to the external service.

The problem is, probably plenty of products do, even if they don't announce it.

I think quite a few products now depend on an external web server for communication across the world just because inter-object e-mail is so slow and unreliable.

No.

Some do, yes, quite a few? No. A vendor system, sure.

If the law of the land conflicts with the terms then the law of the land wins, however you seem to be arguing you should ignore it if you won't get caught. Says a lot more about you than it does about me Gabriele.

Getting back to the EULA... It is certainly possible for a contract to have terms in it that are unenforceable, and those would likely be nullified* by a judge if it got to court. There are also terms that are unreasonable, and those would get smacked down* even quicker. You can sue to get these kinds of terms voided*, too. And ignoring unreasonable terms is not generally considered reprehensible.

That's a separate issue from whether a creator can apply a EULA at all.

* Whatever the legal term is, I like "smacked down" myself.

You have that completely wrong, I am saying that if something does not apply to you then you are free to ignore it. The warranty of an item is one such thing.

You misunderstand me, firstly I never said that legally I was right over everything. Read back and see that I am saying if it turns out to be your way then eventually the weight of this stuff will kill the in world commerce experience for the general public.
I never said applying a EULA to something inworld is wack either. Your words not mine.

Lastly I will repeat again, and this is mostly for Ciaran's benefit. People do ignore legal statements like EULAs, even for software. They do it everyday and nothing bad happens to them. This is different from me, Gabriele and whether I ignore them or not, which is not an issue for debate here. When people do ignore them and nothing happens to them because the burden of bringing so many people into line is too much then that legal mechanism has just become largely irrelevant.
Unlike Ciaran's simplistic view that ignoring a legal mechansim not only puts you at odds with the law but morally and spiritually dubious too, I beleive that legal mechanisms are not automatically just and right even if they are in fact law. There happens to be quite a large body of people who beleive the same as I do too.
Sometimes laws are stupid, unjust, unworkable, incomprehensible and sometimes all of the above. EULAs for the most part, especially for general regular software is one area where this is true.
If SL purchases goes down this route then, again I will repeat, the general buying public will stop buying stuff en masse the way they do today. Whether you agree or not about what metaphor should be in place for in world purchases. I can guarantee you the majority of the buying public in SL are expecting to buy a digital equivalent of an RL tangible and expect what they can or cannot do with such things to be the same or simillar. If that is not true then firstly they will ignore any rules and still treat it that way. If that is somehow enforced or stopped then their RL money will be spent somewhere other than SL.

It won't happen. Most people who attempt to enforce restrictive terms in their products that are significantly more restrictive than the SL protection model defines won't get people buying their stuff. Stupidity is its own punishment.

There are, however, specific situations where this kind of thing is appropriate. Like, people selling textures and "full perm sculpties" and animations and other building tools, where they HAVE TO depend on something more than the coarse-grained protection of the SL model.

I hope so, because the alternative is self destructive.

Never disagreed with this, remember the debate started with a prefab. Those other things are items that creators use to make other things with, and the general buying public don't. That marks the difference to me and the difference in expectations.

I sell my prefabs as modify and copyable, and I have quite a few customers who are land barons/rental agents. They rez multiple copies of the same house. Technically, I could ask for a purchase fee for each *inworld copy*. However, I see it as PR/Exposure and rather than think it loses me revenue, It has worked as inworld advertising for the most part.

Some are my best customers, they buy each new prefab and furniture set on release date and they are my *regulars*. Repeat business can be tough in the prefab market so I find this model works really well.

I started out with a more restrictive view in 2006 when new in SL and with a stronger EULA/less perms. I have always offered a refund too, even for non transfer. Purely, as it takes a minute to agree in most circumstances rather than 30 minutes explaining the issues with non transfer items. I have only ever had to refund twice in 3 years so my policy seems to work.

I still today have a EULA with ability for the customer to reject and obtain a refund within a certain timeframe this states copyright, terms, etc. I think every creator has the right to define their terms, and many of us learn too over time what works and doesn't.

Over the past few years I have come to natural position of time v effort v benefit. For me the optimal is copy + modify. I rarely get support calls (they rez another) and minimal requests to modify things they can do directly.

I am just about to load 2 sims to SLEX so that also now enables transfer in the sense people can gift items.

Anyhow, I do not think EULAs are necessarily a bad thing - each creator has the right to define their terms. Commercially, people buy what makes most sense for them, EULA or not.