There better be a fucking good explanation for this....

You seem to be under the impression that LL actualy gives a rip about what SL users think.

Looking at the quoted section of the ToS in this thread makes it pretty darn clear that LL has set themsevles up to be capable of snapping up anything that they see a huge monetary advantage in.

Create a skin or a script idea that takes off and has the potential to make you thousands and thousands of real $US over the next year or so?
click, click, poof! LL bans you for some stupid made up reason, and then starts selling it for their own profit. It's not like they don't have alts themsevles.

It's getting pretty clear that LL cares only about one thing, and that is money. They no longer have the desire to provide a service that people can enjoy, they are obsessed with money. And it seems clear, especially in the past few days, that they will do anything to get it, even if it ****s all over the current paying users.

It is unlikely. I suspect those terms are in the TOS precisely to prevent potential copyright issues that may come up at any time, such as the copies made during backups or during object testing, etc. They may, or may not, also have been included with the intent to prevent content creators holding SL to ransom.

Nicola for president! A system like this would be so advantageous:

(1) Content creators have IP not just in name, but in power. The downside is, if you get a petty content creator, they could abuse this power by making a sale, then if drama ensues (as it often does in SL; I just got flamed via IM for having a name/key database alongside threats to reveal all my RL info on the web!), deleting the item from someone's inventory as revenge instead of enforcing intellectual property rights. (Oh, and for my RL profile... favorite food is pizza, favorite dessert is cheesecake.)

The way around this would be, to delete from someone's inventory you'd have to provide a reason. If the person is a thief - or got it from the thief - they wouldn't escalate the problem. However, if they are innocent, allow the buyer to escalate for Linden review, having a comment from both sides as evidence.

(2) Less work for Linden Lab. Well, according to people I've known for years and truth, they're really not doing anything about IP theft right now, so maybe its not LESS work. But a system like this at least absolves them of responsibility and puts the responsibility in the IP holder's hands - where it belongs. If I were Linden Lab, I'd love a system like this; why a tech company wants to muck about with the DMCA is beyond me...and it really looks like they don't.

Regards,

-Flip

You said it, but I was thinking it.

coco

I would be more inclined to ask for clarification on what the policy is.

Official words on what they actually mean in the TOS - and what you can do about it - and the process and proceedure to go through.

Otherwise we go round and round in circles with a handfull of wannabe Perry Masons who don't work for the company giving differing opinions on what shit might mean.

And in the end - you still don't know the REAL story.

Looks like people are misreading the TOS. Notice, IANAL, but I can read:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, you understand and agree that by submitting your Content to any area of the service, you automatically grant (and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant) to Linden Lab: (a) a royalty-free, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use and reproduce (and to authorize third parties to use and reproduce) any of your Content in any or all media for marketing and/or promotional purposes in connection with the Service;"

Okay, that says they can use your content for marketing and promotional purposes.

"b) the perpetual and irrevocable right to delete any or all of your Content from Linden Lab's servers and from the Service, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and for any reason or no reason, without any liability of any kind to you or any other party;"

Okay, that says they can delete your content.

"and (c) a royalty- free, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to copy, analyze and use any of your Content as Linden Lab may deem necessary or desirable for purposes of debugging, testing and/or providing support services in connection with the Service."

And that says they can use your content for debugging, testing and support.

None of these provide carte blanche for them to take your content and use it as they will.

The next paragraph is a little harder to parse, but it basically says that if you have a patent on your design, you grant them patent rights:

"You also understand and agree that by submitting your Content to any area of the Service, you automatically grant (or you warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted) to Linden Lab and to all other users of the Service a non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, transferable, irrevocable, royalty-free and perpetual License, under any and all patent rights you may have or obtain with respect to your Content, to use your Content for all purposes within the Service. You further agree that you will not make any claims against Linden Lab or against other users of the Service based on any allegations that any activities by either of the foregoing within the Service infringe your (or anyone else's) patent rights."

Again, this does not allow them to take your content and do whatever they want with it. It just says that you grant them a patent license.

The bottom line is that they can use your content only for specific purposes: marketing, debugging, and support activities. There is no power of "eminent domain" to nationalize or socialize your designs. I don't know if there is a history of such activities, some designer who Linden just blatantly and openly ripped off and told him to get stuffed when he complained? That would be against at least the present TOS.

And realistically, there are limits on what designs can be protected given that they are openly visible to everyone. Textures and physical objects can be copied. Probably scripts are the only things that are really protectable.

Someone asked about watermarking, but those schemes have never worked in other areas. Either the watermark is visible, in which case your design looks like junk, or it's invisible, in which case software can remove it while keeping the texture looking the same.

Just look at the vast failures of the recording and movie industries to protect their content. They have far deeper pockets than LL and they've totally failed. Once MP3s disappear from the world's file sharing systems you can ask LL to deploy analogous technology to protect your designs. But until then, realize that SL designers, like musicians and film artists around the world, are somewhat at the mercy of the ubiquitous culture of piracy which surrounds us.

Which directly and SPECIFICALLY CONTRADICTS the statements of Philip that IP of SL "residents" will be protected in SL.

Then why is anyone still here? They're flat-out LIARS.

For me its because I know that there are differences between a boilerplate to cover your arse and what an actual companies policy is.

Thats what I want to find out : the policy - so I can determine for myself if the whole IP speech was malarky or not.

My teenage sons are rather taken with the Mission Impossible angle, and will go undercover to check this out, Siggy.

Will report back anything they find. I will look over their shoulders and see what I can see too.
bws
Cali

It is possible, though, as far as I know. I had the parent of a teen contact me on the main grid and ask me to put my games up on SLBoutique a while back because their daughter had an account on the Teen grid and wanted a game, and had a friend who could buy it for her through SLB. I've made several sales through SLB since then where I went and looked up the purchaser in Find and came up with no results.

Of course, I have no way to know if they actually received the item, but I doubt they'd keep shopping if they weren't. I've said before that a few enterprising teens who got deported could probably make some cash reselling things from SLB/SLex that way. I'd be utterly shocked if they aren't.

I won't get my panties in a twist quite yet, because we don't know how Siggy's items got there, and we don't know if they are being sold or thier permissions...

BUT I have a feeling if this paticular incident isnt some sort of glitch, theft,or what not, there is other just waiting to be found... LL needs to get thier butts in gear and make copyright theft thier top priority...without content creators , Second Life is NOTHING and they need to start taking that very seriously... it is one thing that clothing and skin designers are getting ripped off left and right, but if this has lead to objects, scripts and animations... oo I dont even know where to begin and I hate to say it, as I have never said anything like this before... but I will be reducing all risks and investments that I have in SL. I will not support LL if they refuse to protect people's creations and investments...
Linden Lab, step up, do something... at least say something!

That's called being GOM'd. Has happened before.

Ok well the grids are not 100% seperate as they are both run at the same area. At a meeting with philip linden trasncripts are somewhere in the announcements he said that they were looking at this as a possible future outlook for some items. How this is done im not sure but It'd be with the owners concent and LL making sure the item is "appropriate".

I could easily doctor a photo and say its the teen grid doesnt mean it is. Alot of items are pretty easy to recreate from photo alone. One could go on something like SL Exchange and figure out how to make some of the items. If they were smart enough they could recreate the scripts and animations qutie easily to.

It is something to worry about if it was done without your concent especially since currently its a bannable offense =/ but not much you can do about it rather then report it. I think its pretty nasty if it was done in fact but *sigh* its bound to happen.

I don't know if anyone said this before, but I can think of at least 2 ways (not include the SLX/SLB thing) that I could transfer an item to the TG. They're both known to the Lindens, though it might be hard to fix them they're probably being worked on to be fixed. And no, I won't tell you how (Unless your siggy, which he at least has a good reason to know.)

jeeesssssss i was wondering what that tight feeling was

Apologize if I'm hijacking your thread, Sig -- maybe I should start a new one?



That is an issue -- and not to pile on the work required, but what if:

1. Content creators were allowed to specify the type of license so the purchaser would know what in fact he or she was agreeing to -- in fact creators could specifiy multiple licenses so that when purchasing the asset, the purchaser could choose between many different licenses and pay different amounts depending. For instance the creator could offer a more flexible license (a "no reclaim" license?) and offset risk through greater revenue.

2. When content is reclaimed from an inventory, the reclamation is accompanied by a small form the creator needs to fill out specifiying the reason. These reclamations could then be made available publicly (I'm a fan of transparency as a reputation system). If a purchaser is worried about buying a "reclaim" license then he/she could look up some stats, see what the creator has reclaimed, and the creator's reasons.

3. License expiration -- maybe a reclaim license reverts to a no-reclaim after a seller-defined period of time.

Drama is inevitable, and while I don't want to appear in favor of hugely draconian measures, I'm suggesting we at least give creators the option to use something to help manage their IP.

Unfortunately I see this as one of the key failings of LL's "Second Life is a like another country but actually if you want to really protect your IP you have to hire a real life lawyer" policy. Second Life is a simulation that can be altered and controlled via code. The relationship between seller and buyer can be different from that in the real world. I'm not saying exclude that option, but at least give sellers other options as well.

If buyers don't want to buy a product with a restrictive license, they don't have to. Caveat emptor -- but at least the sellers won't be completely powerless. And LL will have made on e of their most important assets (content creators/sellers) happy.

Seriously, read a ToS sometime. ToS are all CYA to begin with - it has no bearing on company policy whatsoever. The ToS is wrote by the company lawyer(s). The company policy is set by the company.

Well, anyone can knock off a script too. If you look at the contents of the slides in question, are they his scripts?

If I recall correctly, no one can, because of the segregation between teen grid and main grid.

There is a small hole in those buckets, though. It's called the CLIPBOARD.

Even if scripts can't be copy+pasted, retyping isn't that hard. No where near as hard as making it yourself.

Stop talking nonsense

Interesting how no Linden has bothered replying to this tread. . .

In all fairness to the Lindens it IS the weekend. With that said, who knows if a public response will be forthcomming anyway.

This tread has been here for a few days. I remember reading it a few days ago, unless I've become a physic over night, they've had time to respond.

Looking back to Siggy's original post I see it was made Sat evening MY time, which is a couple hours later than LL time, so on a Sat the majority of LL emplyees are gone for the weekend. It just SEEMS longer 'cuz I, as well as others, have been following this thread and are hoping for a reply.