Copied Content Creators Fighting Back

Jess, I'm gonna have to disagree with you. The fact that some people abuse the legal system does not mean legitimate lawsuits are bad.

I especially do not worry about the copiers suing originators. It is fairly easy for the origin of electronic files to be determined... for example, a copied skin texture will be a single layer, whereas the original creator will possess the original multiple-layer file. Considering how easily a copier's deception can be revealed, and that by filing such a lawsuit the copier puts themselves at substantial risk for criminal charges, I don't think many would even attempt such a thing.

I really believe the problem here lies in copyright violators' belief that they are anonymous in SL, so they will never be caught. I think the Stroker lawsuit goes a long way toward changing that perception, and I for one am glad that he's seeing it through.

The alleged girlfriend is a second life mentor..? I hope those that filed suit know how much they are supported.. GL!

Good to see people taking action. This stuff is going too far.

On a more personal note, this individual in spotlight, "R--- K----," contacted me about a week ago asking where one of my female products were located......

the thing that i dont agree with in all of this is alot of these creators when the alleged theif started sold their items as transfer

i had a character back then that bought their items and they were transferable

heck i have items by some of those creators now that is transferable

so to have some of their items and reselling them at yardsales to me shouldnt be an argument they were transferable i sold some of their items i wasnt using anymore at my old resale shop

granted i didnt have more then an item or two from them not nearly as much as he has but he also had tons of friends in the resale business from what i know

Are you speaking in general or on this specific case?

There are some content creators who dislike reselling businesses (don't think anyone dislikes a *real* yardsale) and call it "theft", but it's just a personal opinion in that case.

In this case the person actually copied (by recreating items or (ab)using sim crashes/rollbacks to gain copies of no-copy items) content though which is a whole different issue.

from what i read in the article they claim its no transfer items but i know quite a few of their items are transferable its how i was able to sell stuff i wasnt using anymore

i can understand if they dont want their items resold then make them no transfer i like transfer items cuz i get bored with my clothing and like to give it away or sell it so i can go shop some more lol

i agree if he gained every single item illegally its wrong but needs to be proven that every single one was gained illegally

This has nothing to do with reselling used items in a legit yard sale. That is unless he purchased 88 copies of 1 item to most likely sell for less then paid for and some of which magically had him as the creator.

What it really has to do with is LL knowing about an exploit, not fixing it and then not following through on the DMCA takedown promise.

Hi all,

DE Designs has 500+/- items which are Transfer. I don't mind in the least, and never have, if you choose to sell any of my original transferable items that you have legitimately purchased from DE Designs.

Hope this helps with any confusion,
DoC

I often wonder how long before numerous tv and fim companies begin to see their characters and creations being duplicated in SL and start to take action due to copyright infrigement.

I hardly dare wonder how long it will be before your favourite superhero or character from star trek or your replica of the USS Enterprise or Stargate teleporter becomes an illegal object because strictly speaking it infringes copyright.

trust me i understand what its about but in the article its stated about non transfer items and they talked about yardsales too

when i had my resale shop i had creators get mad at me for selling their items for 100L or less i said im not usin it anymore why cant i sell it..they said cuz they didnt want me to i said sorry but its transfer..if i sell off my old stuff i have more $L to come shop at your store again and i opened up someone else to learning about your designs thereby making a possible client for you

i just dont want to see yard sale or resellers (legit ones) hurt by this

I cant see the harm in having a sale of your items carboot sale style. As long as you dont copy stuff whats wrong with that ?

Possibly there's much more known about this exploit, and certainly this wouldn't be the place to discuss it, but given what little one can glean from the article, one might understand LL initially judging this a relatively low priority problem: at least as described, it would seem to take a really long time to make many copies, since the conditions that enable the exploit would inherently limit the efficiency of the copying.

None of that is to say that the hole shouldn't have been plugged, but it might not have seemed like a very big hole till proven otherwise--and then it might not be so easy to fix, given the arcana of asset permissions. (Indeed, many of the intricacies of the permissions system were introduced at the behest of the creators of various types of content. It would be good if it all worked, but it is horrendously complex now, so when it doesn't work, we really can't be all that surprised.)

Im now a victim of this expoit. However, not with the group of people this article is about.

Is this exploit going to be fixed? Is LL going to do anything?

The items show that the original creator created them, so it doesnt look like theivery at all, it only looks like the person has resell rights and is reselling them.

While id rather a theif resell the items with my name as the creator, this is still pissing me off.

Is LL trying to fix this?!

I'm sure you AR'd this.

Hopefully its better than in the past - Ive known creators who basically were out of luck.

This kind of thing over the years is how half the "freebies" became freebies.

My guess is that they may not know how. As Qie mentioned, the permission system is hyper-complex and that typically means that it can't be understood, not even by the people who wrote it.

This isn't really related to the permissions system though.

I don't see how LL could fix this without making things possibly far worse when it comes to content loss.

SL has presumably worked this way since the very beginning and most people know about it one way or another so it's hardly an obscure behaviour. It doesn't really make sense that people would suddenly start abusing it. Unless I'm just missing something obvious.

Actually using the exploit involved you could produce copies very quickly. You can double the amount of copies every time you do it, that adds up fast.

This is a very interesting topic.

First of all, does a designer/creator have to own something to put a copyright on it? Is it implied? Did the creators follow the legal procedure to obtain copyrights on this material? (something like that can cost thousands of dollars and only last a year or two) I thought LL owned everything within this platform. TOS? (although as someone mentioned, there was the case with the fraudulent auctioneer) I was told that copyrights involve words and in this case, scripts would apply only for the copyright claims.

Shouldn't there be a little C with a circle around it for anything that is copyright protected? If this symbol is missing or it is not stated in a notecard or sign somewhere, can the copier be held accountable? Where is the little TM? How do people know it is illegal?

Do the designers pay taxes on their earnings each year? (opening up their lives to scrutiny)

Can I put a patent on a wooden box? I'm suing anyone who dares use one in their business or even rez one. ( ha ha just kidding )

I'm not for or against either party in this case; I am just trying to consider what the lawyers may consider in this groundbreaking lawsuit.

Ok so if this cant get "fixed" then basically people need to start getting punished, if not by LL, by the RL law, and SL residents need to be aware of the theives being reprimanded for their acts. Right now, people know they can do what they want without any punishments.

I remember the most recent theif I came in contact with said that "It doesnt matter, I dont have my rl info on file, they cant catch me"... While I`m sure there`s a way to catch this person, that`s the mindsets were dealing with.

Good questions.

As far as copyright go, registering your works with the copyright office in RL helps prove it was yours if you ever get into a battle of any sort, however, if you fail to register, it does not mean you don`t own copyright to your work.

Im not sure if it applies to prims in secondlife, but say you create hand-drawn clothing in photoshop (Which is outside of SL), that is YOUR work of art, and you own the copyright to it.

And yes, many of us pay taxes on our earnings.

Legitimate businesses on the Internet have the purchaser "check" a user agreement before the purchase is made. In the case of the the makers on SL, they provide a "user agreement" on a notecard AFTER the buyer has made the purchase. Creators on SL have failed to do this, leaving theirselves open for just another argument in FAVOR of the Defendent.

Another thing people may want to consider is Textures.

Quite simply, they can not be protected since LL requires them to be full permissions in order to be used. While texture places put out notecards saying about the intended use of such textures, the workings of the system give the owner the right to modify, copy, and sell/give each and every texture.

In this case, I truely believe the ball lies in LL's court. They need to fix the way textures are used in order to protect texture creators. However, as this has been an issue for as long as I've been in SL (and prolly far longer), I don't see LL doing a thing about it anytime soon.

~Jessy

Evidently so, and maybe LL knew or should have known about that. But as described in the article, it would have seemed that the timing was so critical that one couldn't get many objects rezzed within the window of vulnerability, even if you... well, nevermind: this could easily drift into Too Much Information about the exploit. I guess my real puzzle remains how much did LL know and when did they know it. But not exactly: First, everyone in-world has clicked agreement to the ToS which includes language about IP protection. And second, some smart merchants who sell full-perm stuff with special licensing restrictions (textures, some animations) require another affirmative action (usually accepting an EULA by clicking a referencing dialog box) before their vendors will accept money from a buyer. (That said, though, the legal standing of those EULAs hasn't been established in court, AFAIK, and establishing the legitimacy of the RL "shrink-wrap EULA" was costly.)

that thing REALLY needs to be rewritten more concisely

copyright law differs from country to country, whithin the US copyright is assumed upon creation, no notice needed. some countries require notice sa in "copyright 2007 so-n-so" and still others require the addition of "all rights reserved" to gain the same protections