[Source Code]Get a users profile picture

So basically you have no facts, no hard knowledge, no insider information about the process, just a "doubt" as to whether companies are "submitting to the U.S. Regulatory etc.." and an idea of why you think LL is not allowing gambling and also no real knowledge of what the Credit Card companies are doing on the legal front to companies like LL.


So basically, you got nothin'.

And it mattered enough that you gave a completely uniformed, uneducated opinion about what is happening with LL, gambling & credit cards. Gotcha.

What is your source for that, Lear, and are you speaking only of US copyright law? I have a website on which I have photos fully licenced from various photographers; whenever they find any of their photos linked to in the manner you describe, they go after whoever has done it and do a take-down, as that other site has not paid them a licence fee to display their photos. They seem to usually be successful in getting money, or a take-down.

edit: I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_linking (I know, wikipedia is not that great a source, but I'm really supposed to be cooking dinner right now :} ) This wikipedia page mostly talks about deep-linking as being straight to internal pages, rather than image harvesting, though.

I was doubting an assertion make without evidence made by a previous poster.

I have facts. The legislation that caused LL to ban gambling was an act that made financial institutions at risk for funding "illegal internet gambling". This legislation leaves "illegal internet gambling" undefined. Do you dispute this?

It's also a fact that internet gambling sites continue to do business, funded by credit card companies. Do you dispute this?

Someone hazarded a guess that these gambling companies are actively pursuing some kind of relief with regulatory agencies in the US. I doubted that, but true I have no facts. however, it's typically the burden of the one making an assertion to provide evidence, not the doubter.

This is all beside the point anyway.

There's a difference between laws as written and as implemented by courts (based on precedents). That's an unimportant distinction here, and my argument on this point was week to begin with, so I'll drop it. But I do quesiton whether the script posted at the top of this post is a clear copyright violation, since the profile picture is made public and allowed to be published on the web. I think that a good case could be argued either way.

I applaud you for holding yourself to high principles.

I take issue only with the last part "make them feel uncomfortable". A laudable goal. But ..

The ideal host always makes their guests feel comfortable. I love the story about how, when a prince of Japan was visiting, eating at the royal table, at the end of the meal, he drank his finger bowl to the chagrin of the other guests. The Queen promptly drank hers, which led to all the other guests drinking theirs. Good move -- allowing the special guest and outsider to save face.

But this is a matter of etiquette, not law, and I don't like applying rules of etiquette to legal discussions (or TOS).

HOWEVER, the law is also on the side of the complainants here, so that's pretty much the end of the story. My opinion about thin skins is of little importance.

I *think* you mean "the law" as in "the Law of Linden." I do not think there is any possible interpretation of copyright law that makes it a violation for content already licensed (in the ToS) for use within the service, to be used within the service. It is wholly within LL's rights to restrict how that content shall be used in the service, and that's what they did, for better or worse. But it would be quite a stretch to find a copyright violation here inasmuch as no asset was ever transferred or copied in the process, nor taken outside the service--even though LL has itself taken that same content outside the service by posting it on the Web, arguably breaching their own ToS.

All in all, though, I agree: a bit of a tempest in a teapot. LL decided what it decided. I'm greatly puzzled how they hope to reconcile the logic of that decision with pretty much everything they want SL to become. Of course, SuezanneC quite rightly observed the limited value of consistency for predicting the behavior of the gods.

No this is not just about high principles at all. In RL many countries have privacy and data collection/retention laws. There are good reasons why we have them and I just think those rules should be have equivalents where appropriate in SL for good practical reasons.
I agree with your last part though and perhaps, when it is a subject you care strongly about it will be seen and said that you have a thin skin rather than you have a legitimate concern. Viewpoints are tricky like that.

The question is, though, how many of them are companies based in the USA, doing it from servers based there, without complying with the relevant US legislation. After the 2006 legislation was passed there was, as I recall, an exodus of online gambling companies from the USA to jurisdictions like Antigua, Curacao, Dominican Republic, Venezuela and Costa Rica for precisely this reason.

How many of these sites do you say will open accounts for customers offering a credit card billed in the USA as the sole means of payment and how many credit card companies do you say will service accounts at these sites for customers whose billing address is in the USA?

Yes, that is what I meant> Regarding RL copyright law, a good argument could be made for either case.

It's not the gambling sites that the US laws address, but the financial institutions (e.g., credit card companies) that fund them. And yes, you can use your US bank's Visa or Mastercard to pay money to these sites.
Sorry, I can't give you numbers. I can only give you a list of a few popular sites where this is the case. These sites weren't selected due to this property, they were sites used before the legislation, all of which continued in operation after the legislation.

This is all off the topic, though. Also, this state of affairs may be temporary: if congress or the courts define "illegal gambling", the pendulum could swing rather quickly the other way.

Since you're after numbers, would you list the number of gambling sites that moved offshore after the 2006 legislation was passed? Why do you insist on holding me to a higher standard of proof than you hold yourself and others to?

You know, really, the Lindens should just say, "posting your picture here makes it available for public display in many ways (or whatever the right wording is) so if you don't want that, don't post a picture."

Cause right now, we got some people bending over backwards to obey the rules, even if they think the rules are dumb, and a whole bunch of others merrily selling products that flout the rules. [Course then I guess you get into a philosophical debate -- does a rule being unenforceable make it a bad rule? I wonder if the difference between a rule and a suggested guideline is how much effort you put into enforcing it. No one would ever call filing a tax return a suggested guideline :} ]

A suggestion at a better solution, allow two pictures, one you don't mind the masses seeing and a picture if placed there would be subject to the profile picture displays, etc. and one that is only for people looking at your profile directly.
If that is too much work then I would say remove the ability to retrieve the picture UUID from the web site altogether. There is no compelling reason why anyone needs to harvest profile pictures or show them to the masses on big screens. It is not critical or important functionality.
Either solution would resolve the problem of getting permission or breaking the TOS.

Can't give you exact numbers of who moved when, I'm afraid, or not without spending more time than it's worth. Information Week, though, gave an overview in 2007 http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198700819 and the current figures for the numbers of sites accepting bets from players based in the US, by jurisdiction at http://online.casinocity.com/jurisdictions/index.cfm?SearchAll=0&start=1&sortlist=sites&numperpage=25 suggest the the US is hardly the jurisdiction of choice in which to base your site. Maybe this was the case before 2006, of course.

And, while some credit card companies may accept US bets, according to their website, "PayPal prohibits transactions for gambling activities by merchants and account holders in the U.S. and any jurisdiction where gambling activities are illegal, and by merchants whose services are accessible to account holders in the U.S", which may have been a consideration for Linden Labs.

Yes, no doubt. So the policy may be more due to Paypal's decisions than LL's, since LL is pretty commited to PayPal.

I still think it's ironic that SL went through all the fuss to ban gambling, and yet true internet gambling sites are up and running just fine. True it's a bit of an apples/oranges comparison. Irony doesn't require prefect logic.