New Copyright Threat Warning

Encouragement of the creative process is an important pillar on which copyrights exist in the US. This is clearly borne out by the arguments that Madison used to persuade Jefferson, who thought that knowledge should be in the public domain.

However, it's not the only argument. It's just the only argument that liberals tend to use. It certainly isn't the only reason Madison held his view. It's just the one that mattered most to Jefferson.

Another argument, one generally made by conservatives, is that people should own the fruits of their own labor (in this case, creativeness). That same argument is often used by liberals in other arenas.

Your use of the term "extort" here shows more about how you think than about what the reality is. Admittedly, IP rights are abused -- but it's not legally "extortion". You seem to be making the claim here that there is no such thing as intellectual property, just a shadow of such, and only for purposes of the public good. It's a good utilitarian argument, but it's not the only valid point of view. Not by a long shot.

If you have a point to argue, please argue it; don't just point to a huge site and say "do your own research". Because I could do the same, pointing to http://copyright.gov , which does support virtually everything I've said, except for particulars about DMCA, and my interpretations of my father's interpretations on Fair Use.

I don't think you've read my posts very carefully -- given the length and number of posts here, that's not much of a criticism. I'm a strong supporter of the rights of copyrights, but I feel DMCA has gone too far, as has much of US law (e.g., allowing indefinite extension of copyrights, which even Milton Friedman, a noted conservative, says is a "no brainer" that it's not in the interest of stimulating creativity).

I'm not a big fan of DMCA, but that doesn't blind me to the fact that it's established law in the US (until it's successfully challenged, and I won't hold my breath but I will cross my fingers) and the fact that the service described by the OP violates it quite clearly.

Whether DMCA is constitutional or not is another question. I couldn't begin to discuss that with any authority.

Yes, it is simplistic, and no, it's not the only right thing to do.


I'm not sure where you got any of that. I made no such assumptions. In fact, just the opposite, I'm usually one of the first to point out that there can never be technological solutions to what are ultimately social issues. DRM doesn't work, never has, and never will. But that's got nothing to do with anything I said here. You would do well to stop trying to read between the lines, and just accept the letter of what I've actually written as exactly what I meant.




Who said anything about extortion? You really think every author, artist, filmmaker, playwright, composer, etc., who holds a copyright is an extortionist? I guess you're one of those anti-IP, we-should-all-live-on-a-commune, kind of people, then? Would I be correct in assuming you're probably a proponent of things like the Orphan Works bill, which are actively seeking to all but destroy the modern notion of copyright as we know it? You're sure sounding like one of those people. I'll never understand you guys.

In any case, protecting creators' rights is synonymous with encouraging the creative process, in any world in which creators need to make a living. To suggest otherwise is to be incredibly naive, and childishly idealistic. I'm sorry if that sounds insulting (it probably does), but I really don't know how else to put it. You seem to be coming from a position of utopian fantasy, completely ignoring the reality that financial incentive is quite often the very thing that makes creativity possible in the first place.


Excuse me, but we ARE talking about the US Constitution here, right? Have you actually read it?

Here's the entire text: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt You'll find that nowhere in it does it "require copyright". In fact, it doesn't even mention copyright at all. The document is not even set up in such a way that the sort of "requirement" you're implying could exist within it. That's simply not what The Constitution is for. It exists to define what the US government can and cannot do, not to "require" things of the people.

What is commonly referred to as "the copyright clause" of the Constitution is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, which grants Congress the power to secure exclusive rights for authors and inventors. Nowhere does it say Congress actually has to exercise that power, only that it has it. And since the same section also grants Congress the power to make laws, courts historically have interpreted "the copyright clause" to mean that Congress should draft copyright and patent laws, which is exactly what it has done.


What?! I'm sorry, but were you raised in the US or not? I mean, seriously, did you actually attend school here, or did you arrive later (if you're actually here at all)? I know they don't really teach civics like they used to these days, but I'd like to think people still have at least some idea of how our system works. Clearly you do not (no offense).

Look, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress should just write a law once, and then never ever change it. That's not how we do things in this country. The genius of our system is that our laws, and even our Constitution itself, can be amended and changed. The founders had the wisdom to realize that what was fitting for their own time would not be fitting for ALL time, and that in order for any nation of laws to be lasting, it would have to be continually adaptable.

The first copyright law in the US was passed in 1790, when the most advanced copying device in the world was a movable type printing press. Do you really think we should still be operating based on that? There's just no way the authors of that law could ever have envisioned the world we live in today. That's just common sense.


Good lord, man! Who the heck taught you history?!

The Copyright Act of 1790 established (among other things) a copyright term of 14 years, with a 14-year renewal. Keep in mind, the average life expectancy at the time was only 35. 14 years + another 14 years represented the bulk of a human lifespan.

A hair over a century later, in 1909, life expectancy was closer to 55. Copyright was then extended to 28 years, with a 28-year renewal. Again, this figure represented an entire average lifespan.

The third major overhaul of US copyright law happened in 1975. It was changed to 75 years (corporate authorship) or the life of the author plus 50 years (individual authorship).

In 1998, it was changed to 120 years from the date of creation or 95 from the date of publication (corporate), or the life of the author plus 50 years (individual).

The pattern is fairly obvious, and very consistent. US copyright law has ALWAYS been designed to protect authors for their lifetimes.



You're not comparing apples to apples here, and you know it. First, administrating a system is not an act of creation. Second, most creators do not get paid directly for the time spent doing the actual creation. The only way they can be compensated fairly for the work put into the creation is for them to be able to reap the benefits from the ongoing sale of the creation once it hits the market. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

And by the way, creatives aren't the only people who get paid this way. Sales people, for example, have an almost identical pay system. I spent the first 12 years of my adult life as an outside sales rep (about half of that time, I was a district manager for the company I represented, and had other sales people working under me as well). When I would meet with a client to create a sale, I never got paid directly for my time, not ever. What I got paid by was sales commission, nothing else. I worked very hard to generate sales, and I was compensated accordingly. I made a lot of money in those days.

When my clients bought, I got paid, and that was that. The amount of work I had to do upfront to generate a long-term relationship for repeat business was completely unpaid time, as was any ongoing work I had to do to maintain such relationships.

In many ways, that sales process was analogous to the creative process. As an artist, I create a piece of work once, just as as a sales rep I created a client relationship once. Every time a copy of my artwork sells, I get paid, just as every time my company's products sold to one of my clients I got paid before. It's exactly the same thing.

People who only trade hours for dollars are really missing the boat.



First of all, I see very little difference between copyright infringement and theft of physical property. Either one directly takes something of value away from its rightful owner. But that really wasn't the point. I was simply illustrating that breaking the law is breaking the law, is breaking the law. The nature of the crime is secondary to the fact that a crime did indeed take place. The differences are in degree, not in kind.



Well, quite obviously YOU don't. You've made that very clear. But you don't speak for everyone. Don't make the mistake of assuming that "the average joe" necessarily feels the way you feel about ANYTHING, ever. Give your own individuality a little more credit than that.


How exactly do you think authors get paid? Or recording artists? Or filmmakers? Etc., etc., etc. The vast majority of creatives earn royalties. Most do not simply trade hours for dollars in the manner, say, network administrators do.


You really have no idea who you're talking to here, do you? I AM a graphic designer, for crying out loud! Wanna know what it says underneath my name on my business cards and letterhead? It says "3D Modeling, Texturing, Graphic Design, Illustration" (and soon to be added, "Motion Graphics"; I've been learning After Effects, fun stuff). For certain types of jobs, I do charge by the hour, just as you're saying. For others, I negotiate royalties. It depends on the nature of the project, and it's all quite standard.



Once again, you're wrongly assuming things about what you think I meant instead of what I actually said. I don't think you don't feel creators should be compensated. I just think you're painfully ignorant on how various creative industries operate, and that as a result, you've got some very naive and over-simplified notions of how it all "should" be, according to you.


If you want to set up a fund to pay all creators what they're worth to do nothing but create all day long, awesome. Sign me up, and I'll take all the money you can throw my way. But that's simply not how the world works.

No one paid J.K. Rowling to write Harry Potter. She lived in poverty for years, while she labored to put that story together. Does she now not deserve to reap the rewards from her creation, which has brought so much joy to so many millions of people? Of course she does.

I think what this really comes down to is you're jealous. You simply can't stand the fact that you work so hard in your little sys admin cubicle for peanuts on the hour while we creatives just "work once and then get paid forever". I can assure you, most creatives work harder than you, and get paid a lot less. And the one-hit-wonders of the world are as poor as they come. If I told you how many flat broke "successful" rock stars I know, it would blow your mind.


Actually, it's very American. As you pointed out, it's in the Constitution. Congress is expected to pass laws to protect creators' rights.


What the hell are you talking about? We revolted from England because of runaway taxes, and lack of fair representation as citizens of the empire, not because of copyright. Once again, who exactly taught you history?


Where exactly did you get this seven year idea from? It never existed. Look it up. As I said, US copyright law was always structured in such a way that creators could benefit from their works for a lifetime. The only difference between now and 200 years ago is that people live longer now.


As I said before, Fair Use exists to help balance First Amendment rights with copyrights. It doesn't matter whether copyright holders "think it's legal to infringe on Fair Use" or not. The law says what it says, and it strikes a perfectly appropriate balance.

And there's no longer any such thing as renewals. Since 1998, copyright terms are (once again) 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation (whichever is shorter) for corporate creations, and lifetime plus 50 years for individual creations. That's it. Sooner or later, all works become public domain. I'm sorry if you're so impatient to have such a problem waiting around for the later to come.

Well, try telling that to Viximo or any other company producing virtual goods in the real world. See what they have to say about it.

Yes, and this does not factor into selling virtual goods. If you want to call somebody a sucker for spending US $3 for an off the shelf skin instead of spending US $1,500 for a custom one-off job, go right ahead. You've probably amused them at best, or insulted them.



I've been there and done all of that. My current business model has worked just fine for the last 4+ years and I'm proud to report that the price the market will bear is quite a bit above L$0 for skins. I create stuff and put it up for sale for a few bucks. After a few hundred sales I consider my time compensated for, and I move on to producing more content. It's basically a pooled commission, and much cheaper than asking one customer to foot the entire bill. There's also support for everyone (can you fix this?, replace this?, do this?, customize this?, etc., etc.) and perks (custom services for certain products), so I guess that falls in line with your Red Hat model. I also do the one-off work, but that is only for a very small percentage of the SL population.

The part where you mention a customer having a RIGHT to copy and share textures (or whatever the IP is) with others is where you go off the deep end. That kind of behavior has viral consequences in a virtual world. If everyone did that in SL then there would be no more content creators, just freeloaders recycling old goods.

It is the only constitutionally valid point of view, however. Read up on SCOTUS decisions.

If you're trying to argue that nocopy/nomod/notransfer permissions are a good thing, then you're invalidating your views about DRM and vice versa.



Extortion is when someone gains property or money from another person by means of coercion. How is unlimited copyright not coercive?



Limited copyright, yes. Unlimited copyright, no. Disney, for example, has lobbied repeatedly to reduce the limits of copyright time and time again so they can keep making money off their first motion picture instead of being creative and coming up with something new. Under copyright law as originally envisioned, everything prior to Brother Bear would be in the public domain by now.



It also says that copyright is to be limited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause



I'm a native of Portland, Oregon, and yes, civics is a required part of the curriculum to graduate high school in Oregon.



If it's not broke, don't fix it.



Tell that to Walt Disney.



I'm sorry you've convinced yourself of that, it makes your argument seem that much less rational.



Wait, you continue making the same commission over and over again for the rest of your great grand-children's natural life? That's what copyright holders get; longer if Disney continues on their anti-public domain lobbying in congress.




If they don't want to play by the rules of society, then they should be allowed to fail.



Notice I said, "among other things." It was a factor, or it wouldn't have ended up in the constitution from the get-go.



You heard it here first, the DMCA is fair and balanced!

You heard it here, first: The very business model that Red Hat uses quite successfully is an economic impossibility!

You're just not getting it, and quite deliberately, it seems. Of course the existence of the permissions system is a good thing. But that doesn't mean it's foolproof. It can be easily circumvented, in any number of ways.

But what makes it work is not its technical function. It also has social implications. It's a very real part of the culture of SL. The vast majority of people in SL abide by it, respect it, and assign deep meaning to it. It's far from perfect, of course, but in many ways it's a very good example of how technical engineering and social engineering can and should be employed synergistically.




No one coerces anyone to buy anything. If you don't like the fact that my materials are copyrighted, don't buy anything from me. That's your right.




First of all, Disney comes up with new stuff all the time. So you can't say "instead of coming up with something new". You really should rephrase that to say "in addition to coming up with something new".

Second, there's no such thing as unlimited copyright. There are very real limits in place.



There you go with that seven year thing again. Did you read anything I wrote on that in my last post? Pick up a history book, for crying out loud. Read the Constitution that you seem to be so fond of misquoting. If nothing else, look it up on wikipedia. The very first copyright law in this country provided for 14 years, plus a 14 year renewal. Why is that so hard for you to accept as truth? It's a matter of history, established fact. The fact that you keep denying it really makes you look foolish, sorry as I am to have to say that.




Yes, but it doesn't specify what the limits should be, or how they should be imposed. They left that wide open for Congress to decide.

As I've already said, it IS limited. This weird notion you seem to have that it somehow lasts forever is completely a figment of your imagination. It has always loosely followed human life expectancy, plus or minus a few years. It's somewhat arguable that the current limit of 50 years past the author's death might be excessive, but it is still a limit, nonetheless.




I hope the other students got more out of it than you seem to have. I really hate ever to sound mean, and I realize that probably am sounding that way now, but really, you're not demonstrating knowledge of the subject.




OK, then. Let's all throw away our computers, and break out our feather quills, parchment, and India ink. We can draw our avatars and mail our IM's to each other via pony express. It'll be a grand old time.




Tell him what, exactly? That copyright law did indeed protect his creations throughout his lifetime, just as it was supposed to? Because that's what happened.

Psst... I think he already knew that.




You really think making sure a string of computers operates within normal parameters is equivalent to authoring a book, or creating a painting, or writing a movie? I'm glad you get so much satisfaction out of your job. Really, I am. I could only hope that if I were ever to do a job like yours, I could find so much pride in it as you seem to. That's an admirable trait. But at the same time, it's important to recognize it for what it is, and not equate it to things it's not.

Please don't take that the wrong way, dear readers. I'm not in any way trying to imply that any one profession is any more or less noble than any other. Honest work is honest work. But to deny that two such different types of jobs are in fact different is to be less than honest.


So you expect my great grand children will only outlive me by 50 years? Wow, that means I can look forward to a granddaughter who's going to get knocked up at 14, and a great grandchild who will die in a tragic school bus accident. Thanks for the positive thinking there, buddy.

Look, I don't know about you, but my great grandparents, all eight of them, died decades before I was born. Any copyrights they might have had expired long before I came into existence.



But they ARE playing by the rules. Just because Baloo Uriza has decided he doesn't like the rules doesn't mean they don't exist.





Got any historical evidence to back that up, or are you just assuming (again)?

Is it really your assertion that everything in the constitution is there because of some thing or another that the first Americans didn't like about England? Give the founders a little more credit than that. Their motivation certainly wasn't to be as "not-English" as possible. One of the greatest meetings of minds in the history of this planet came together to invent a new nation, based on rule of law. The questions of how and whether to be un-English or not played little part, if any, in that.

The reason "the copyright clause" is in the Constitution is because the founders realized that innovation and creativity were going to be vital to the health, success, and longevity of the fledgling country, and to that end, that the government would have a responsibility to ensure that creatives will be able to benefit from their creations. It's all about providing incentive. The wording of the clause makes that abundantly clear.

"The Congress shall have Power... to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Got it? "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." They knew that we'd need creativity in order to prosper. The meaning couldn't be more clear. I don't know why you so stubbornly refuse to see it.



I thought it was pretty obvious that what I was talking about when I said "the law is fair and balanced" was not the DMCA, but the Fair Use clause (because that's exactly what I said I was talking about). We've already discussed the fact that DMCA has nothing to do with Fair Use. The two laws exist in parallel, and really don't affect each other at all.

I get it perfectly well. I still think DRM in all forms is intrinsically immoral at best.



14 years is perfectly reasonable, not a lifetime. Again, that's like saying I worked this week, so I should be entitled to a paycheck for that work that I already did over and over again for the rest of my life. Bzzt.



If copyright was in any way limited, even by your "lifetime" definition, Steamboat Willie through The Jungle Book should be public domain by now. Guess what? They're not.



Non-sequitor much?



The DMCA effectively abolished Fair Use. You and other strong copyright advocates are definitely in the minority opinion on this issue.

From here on out, cite your sources or don't expect a response. I want to see where you're deriving your twisted logic from.

Intrinsically immoral, and in every conceivable form? Wow. And you say your views are not simplistic? Simply amazing.




What part didn't you understand? The part about 14+14 equaling 28, or the part about a lifespan in 1790 being only a few years longer than that (35)? The term you're talking about WAS a lifespan, for all intents and purposes.

How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in with you? Throughout US history, copyright terms were designed to be in sync with human lifespans. 28 years does not have anywhere near the same meaning today as it did in 1790.


If the work you did was to create something new in the universe that did not exist before, and if copies of that creation continue to sell, then yes, by all means, you should get paid over and over again, every time a new sale is made.

You do realize that McDonald's Corporation gets paid a royalty every time you buy a cheeseburger at your local McDonald's restaurant, even if that location is privately owned, right? And you do understand that every time you buy a car, or a computer, or practically any other piece of technology, dozens of patent holders get paid, right? Patents and copyrights are the very fires that power the machinery of our economy. They always have been, and always will be. The world you live in wouldn't exist without residuals. I can't imagine why you're so opposed to them.



The Jungle Book, the book, IS public domain. The Disney movie version was made in 1967, just 41 years ago, and the copyright on it was corporate. It had no single author. It was entirely a corporate endeavor. And for cases like that, the current term is 95 years past the date of publication. So there are still 54 years to go.

As for Steamboat Willie, well that one's a whole ugly mess. Technically, its copyright was never actually Disney's property. Proof of that has existed since 1928. But trying to say that too loudly can get you sued. It's another unfortunate example of how those with a lot of money to spend on lawyers can sometimes trample over such inconvenient things as facts. But you can't blame such abuses on the law itself. Blame it on the people doing the abuse.

If Disney does own the copyright as they claim, then it's set to expire in 15 years. If they don't, it expired long ago. Believe whichever version you want, but either way, there IS a limit in place.




Hey, you're the one who brought up the great grandkids. I do expect mine to live just a wee bit longer than you do.



Exactly what part of the DMCA contradicts Fair Use? Quote it, or provide a link. Have you actually read the law? Any part of it at all?

Let me summarize it for you. It's basically got five components, known as titles, none of which affect Fair Use. I'll explain them one by one, briefly.

Title I, enters the United States into the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO). I would imagine you probably hate that treaty, if you even know what it is, since it prohibits circumvention of DRM, not just in the US, but around the world.

Title II, limits liability for online service providers.

Title III allows the copying computer programs for the purpose of repair.

Title IV contains a bunch of small things, including provisions for functions of the Copyright Office, some provisions for distance education, exemptions for libraries, an exception for broadcast companies regarding the recording of sounds in public places, exceptions for webcasting, and certain regulations for transfers of rights of motion pictures.

Title V protects the design of vessel hulls.

None of that has anything to do with Fair Use. As I said earlier, DMCA neither strengthens nor weakens Fair Use, neither supports it nor opposes it. The two do not overlap in any way. They exist in parallel, and that's it.

All that said, certain uber zealots for Fair Use have put forward the argument that since Title I makes no specific exception for Fair Use, DRM could potentially be used as a weapon against Fair Use, if copyright holders were so inclined to use it that way. In reality, it's extremely unlikely that something like that could ever happen, given the nature of what the Fair Use clause actually says. But the point is still arguable.

Eventually, I'm sure a case will come before the courts to set a precedent for interpretation of Title I's lack of an exception, but to my knowledge, the entire argument has been nothing more than hypothetical in the entire 10 years since the law was written. No realization of this theoretical potential attack on Fair Use has yet come into being, as far as I know.

In the mean time, it's a bit like "the war on Christmas" or the idea that buying large quantities of duct tape is somehow a viable way to prepare for World War III. It's a fear-based notion of what MIGHT happen in a worst case scenario, nothing more. The reality "on the ground", as they say, is quite a different story.

So once again, I invite you to explain how DMCA has "abolished" Fair Use. Show me any part of the DMCA that repeals or supercedes the Fair Use clause, and we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise, your incessant voicing of your wild imaginings is growing ever more pointless.



I've cited every single one of my sources. I've been going on exactly what the laws say.

However, if it makes you feel better, here's the complete list:

1. The US Constitution - you can read the full text at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

2. Copyright Law of the United States - full text at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf

3. Copyright Act of 1790 - full text at http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf

4. Copyright Act of 1909 - full text at http://www.copyright.gov/history/1909act.pdf

5. Copyright Act of 1976 - full text at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

6. Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 - full text at http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/s505.pdf

7. Digital Millennium Copyright Act - US Copyright Office summary at http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf, full text at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appb.pdf

8. The Fair Use Clause - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107


Happy reading.

The way I see this is that he/she is possibly using a copybot or some sort but you will probably never get he/she to own up to it, Its "Skin Ripping" which is a process that basically duplicates the skin/garment into he/she's own personal texture. Which IS illegal and could possibly lead to real life legal issues if the creator has a registered watermark.
On that note you should report the IM to LL if you have not done so already. And please beware of your creations take time to watermark everything you release, there ARE people out there that will do this sort of thing for lindens. Content creators should all be told about this "business/service".

I appreciate you being on the right side of this debate, Nikki, but this thread has been dead for several months. It would probably be best just to let it stay buried.

In any case, just so you know, the method most likely being employed has nothing to do with Copybot. Really, it doesn't even have anything to do with SL itself. If you know your way around how this stuff works, you can extract any image or any model from any game, rather easily. I won't make it any easier on potential pirates by going into detail, of course, but there's very little mystery to it. Anything that can be displayed on a screen can be captured, just like anything that can be played through a speaker can be recorded.

Nikki, I hope you'll be encouraged to learn that you're wrong about the service provider. He learned here that even if he was scrupulous about deleting the ripped textures, his customers could use his service to cheat makers of copy/no-xfer products (e.g., Nyoko's Oils). As a result, he stopped offering the service. Details are in the thread.

Oh, sorry I didn't catch that.

If it can be proven that the OP's neighbour is reselling skins for profit other than a fee for the service he is offering then I guess he would be up to his neck in the brown stuff. Otherwise I do not see the problem with what he is doing: it takes some time and effort for him to bake these customised textures so why should he not be paid for his trouble?

With all due respect to Chosen, Ordinal et al, the lengthy and didactic explanations of fair use and copyright law are still very much a hazy cloud on this issue. It could even be argued that the rebaker is providing a valuable service both to his clients and SL whereby several memory-costly textures are streamlined into one fairly succinct skin-layer. It could also be argued that the combination of skin, hair, tattoos and whatever else requested by the rebaker's client is a creative exercise of his or her own that is perfectly in keeping with the essential spirit of SL, in which case the rebaker is simply facilitating his client's desire for more individual expression.

By his own admission, the rebaker is not reselling the product of this collaboration to anyone other than his client to whom he is simply returning the goods as described in return for a fee for the service rendered.

I do this exclusively for myself on a regular basis using GLIntercept (let's not be coy, folks) and, while I do not offer it as a service, gratis or for a fee to anyone else, I make no apologies for doing so:

*It is my business if I wish to remove a trademark from the sole of a skin, which the apparently litigious creator did not notify me of in his advertising - I cut labels out of my jackets in RL also and I would thrash the idiot who would attempt to tattoo my foot with his logo.

*It is my business if I wish to correct perceivable flaws in that skin with the aim of improving my avatar's appearance.

*It is my business if I prefer to rebake the skin using 512 x 512 files if the artistically gifted but technically ignorant creator insisted on exaggerating his or her work with 1024 x 1024 files that have previously had no effect other than to cause extended delays as it is baked on my avatar.

*It is my business if I learn that 66% of the expensive skin for which I foolishly shelled out good money is just a rehash of another by the same 'artist' who led me to believe that I was buying a wholly different and original piece of work.

Wake up and smell the coffee, folks, cut and paste is not the sole preserve of content creators.

Copyright law has yet to fall in step with the digital age but when it does we will have a much improved view of what constitutes copyright infringement - and what constitutes honest and original work. Until then, anyone who seeks to curtail what happens between me, my computer and the freely available open source materials I am working with can see me in court.

Ephraim, if you don't like a skin as it exists, don't buy it. It's that simple. You don't get to make an unauthorized copy, just because you wish a few details were different. That's not a "hazy cloud". That's a fact of law.

The act of cutting labels out of RL jackets is not in any way analogous. Altering a RL item does not involve making an unauthorized copy of anyone's IP. But altering a piece of SL clothing does. That's the difference. Again, there's nothing "hazy" about it.

I would invite you to read the law, if you don't believe me. It's plain as day.

If someone were to take you up on your offer to see you in court, you'd lose. The fact that it's unlikely that someone would actually do so doesn't make it right. It's not about what you can or can't get away with. It's about right and wrong. If you can't see the difference, I weep for you.

It is not that simple at all, Chosen: the examples I gave are representative of a variety of experiences I have had with different products and the problems were not apparent prior to making the purchases. My expenditure was fait accompli and not one of the parties in question was prepared to respond to my complaints about their product, let alone entertain the notion of a refund, so your implication that I had a choice in the matter is quite unfair.

If we are going to carp about the letter of the law then I will cite my own bugbear about poor support for consumer's rights in SL. Interestingly, I have yet to see a lengthy and considered thread on the responsibilities of producers to consumers on any of the SL forums. Linden dollars are bought with real US dollars and yet producers consistently fail to honour their responsibilities in this respect.


The law is an ass, Sir!

If someone has ripped me off to the tune of ten US dollars for a skin that is more or less just a slightly altered copy of something I bought from him previously then I am entitled to finish the work he implied he did when he sold me the item under a completely different description. It is my right to exercise choice and modify that item with, say, lighter skin tone, an appendix scar or different body hair in order to have what I paid for: a new skin.

I am thankful that I am in a position to do so but my concern is deep for other consumers who have neither the technical competence nor the time to do likewise: the individual in question has profited many times over from his shoddy business practice.



I have taken legal advice on this issue, having had considerable experience of copyright infringement of my own work in RL and I have to repeat my assertion that copyright law has yet to fall in step with the digital age.

Copyright on digital products is complicated by the consumer's capacity to copy and alter those products. As such the issue of copyright infringement is entirely open to examination of individual cases. In brief, there is no case to answer unless it can be proven that a product has been redistributed in a recognisable form without permission.

You may argue that by ripping a baked texture onto his computer then uploading and returning it to his client, the rebaker has copied and redistributed the product illegally but that is entirely open to interpretation should a case of copyright infringement be brought against him. He has simply returned the product to the client in a form that client desired and there is no case for him to answer unless it can be proven that he resold the item to a third party at least once.



Quite possibly I would lose a court case if it were proven that I am using the tools at my disposal to redistribute another resident's work either for personal profit or simply for free in a purely malicious attempt to damage their income. Otherwise the case would be dismissed since I have exercised my right to do as I please with a product I obtained by legal means and, outside of my inventory folder, there is no copy of another individual's work with my name on it in SL.


Save your tears. It is plain to my conscience that so long as the producer's income is not damaged through redistribution of his product to a third party, then there is no wrong done - legally, morally or even artistically.

And the SL environment is quite a few megabytes the richer in terms of download time.

"u r stole my pixels, nubbins!"

What's the big deal. The business is offering a service of combining layers on two seperate objects. I love my tats in SL (I only have the 1 in RL atm, it's not enough! Damned money stuff), it never ocurred to me to burn the texture onto my skin - my tats & skin havnt changed in over a year, but the times it's become an inconvenience because I cant wear something on the underwear layer is slowly mounting.

This person is providing a service, legal or not, I dont think it's against the spirit of anything.

Nothing about case law is EVER plain as day.

I could as easily say that any judge with half a brain, faced with a case where the Plainiff argues copyright infringement based on someone modifying a book, recording or anything else to suit their personal preferences, would probably saddle the Plaintiff with full court costs and laugh him or her out of court.

And both of us would probably be wrong, and the judge might NOT have half a brain.

You were right before when you suggested this thread died a well-deserved death. Speculation about points of law, in the absence of an actual set of cases, is pretty pointless. In the presence of cases it becomes a law school classroom exercise. I have a friend who graduated magna from Harvard Law and barely ever went to class, so that should tell you something about how useful these discussions are.

Hear! Hear! I can't believe that this shouting match has managed to survive for so long.

Yes, it IS that simple, Ephraim. If you feel you were suckered into making a purchase unfairly, then your recourse is to ask for a refund. If the seller refuses, then you can take him or her to small claims court, if you're so inclined.

What you don't get to do is break the law just because you feel you've been slighted. Two wrongs don't make a right, ever.




I agree with you that that's a topic worthy of discussion. If you fee it's important, how about you write that lengty and considered first post yourself? Threads don't get started on their own, you know.




Spoken like a true criminal.




No, if you were ripped off, then you're entitled to recover your money, using every legal means at your disposal. You're not entitled to break the law yourself, whether it be to make an unauthorized copy, or for any other purpose. Why is that so hard to understand?

If you're capable of "finishing the work", then clearly you're capable of making your own skin from scratch. It seems to me you'd be much happier if you just went ahead and did that. Why don't you?



No one running a "shoddy business" will stay in business very long. Let the natural laws of economics and evolution take their course. If a business is bad news, they won't retain their customer base, and they'll go "extinct". If you're unhappy with a particular business, the best thing you can do for yourself and your community is just don't shop there anymore, and tell all your friends exactly why.





That may or may not be true, but either way, you don't get to break the law just because you feel like it. If you feel a law is wrong or outdated, contact your congressman. That's what they're there for. The process may be slow and lumbering, but it is what it is. In the mean time, we all have to abide by what the law says now.



That's not a complication; it's an excuse. Yes, consumers have the ability to copy and alter just about anything. But that doesn't mean they have the right to.

I have the ability right now to punch through the dividing wall between my neighbor's unit and mine (I live in a duplex), and install a hidden webcam in their shower. The digital age makes it very easy for me to broadcast my neighbors' bathing activities to the entire world. But that doesn't mean I have the right to do it. Clearly it would be wrong of me if I did it.

Don't mistake ability for right. They're two different things.




Possibly, but again, you don't just get to make up your own excuses to get around the law, in the hope that you could maybe just possibly get away with it if it ever went to court. The law is written in plain English, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern its meaning.



Again, just because you think you can get away with it doesn't make it right. Don't copy other people's work without their express permission. Once again, it's that simple.




There's no "interpretation" required. It's a point of fact. The process you just described involves circumventing DRM, which is a violation of DMCA, making an unauthorized copy of someone else's IP, which is a violation of the larger Copyright Act, and then giving yet another copy to someone else, which is another violation of the Copyright Act. Further, the use of a publicly accessible server was employed to facilitate the process, which is another violoation of DMCA, and possibly other computer network related laws.

The fact that you want to believe there's a different interpretation doesn't make it so. I want to believe benevolent space aliens will arrive this afternoon and cure cancer, but my wishful thinking doesn't amount to fact in any way. Neither does yours.




With the above statements, you're demonstrating that you've fallen prey to the single biggest misconception about copyright, that there has to be money involved in order for it to matter. That's absolutely not true.

Whether or not you profit from your copying has nothing whatsoever to do with it. If you make an unauthorized copy, you've infringed as soon as you've made it. What you do with it after that can only compound the original problem.



Two things. First, the case likely wouldn't be dismissed. The appropriate (minimum) outcome would be for you to be issued a cease and desist order by the court, explicitly barring you in no uncertain terms from ever copying that artist's work again. Were you to do so after that, you could face criminal charges. It's also possible (but somewhat less likely) that you'd be ordered to pay punitive damages, since you did in fact break the law, even if there are no definable actual damages to be assessed.

Second, and much more importantly, you seem to be grossly misunderstanding what it means to make a purchase in SL. When you "buy" a product, you're not buying the actual item itself. What you're buying is a limited use right to a piece of intellectual property, in the representative form of a digital asset. You don't own the source imagery or any other components of said asset in any way. You don't even own the asset itself. What you own is the right to use the asset in a very limited fashion, within the confines of the Second Life system. That's it.

If you bought a skin, you have the right to adorn your avatar with that skin. That's as far as it goes.

You have absolutely no right to extract any of the source components, including the texture(s), at all. The moment you do so, you have violated copyright law.




First, it's not just about income. It's about creator's rights. Creators have the right to determine whether and how their work is to be copied. That's why intellectual property law exists.

Second, I would submit that the creator's income certainly WAS affected. If you wanted an altered copy of his/her work, then the right thing to do is to ask him/her to do the alterations, a service for which he/she could charge a fee. If the creator chooses not to comply, or chooses to forgo any fee, that's his/her decision to make. You don't get to take that away from him/her just because you want to.



Another excuse.




Did I say anything about case law? No, I said to read the law as it exists on the books. In the absence of a clear precedent that either supports or rejects the exact wording, the exact wording is what we must abide by. If and when a judge says different, then we can reassess. But I doubt one ever would. Despite all the wild imaginings and wishful thinking by those who refuse to read it, the law is quite clearly written. There's little if any "mud" in there at all.




I would totally agree with you in that assessment. But as I pointed out with the jacket example earlier, modifying a book or a recording need not involve circumventing DRM, making unauthorized copies, or uploading copies to a third party server.

But modifying no-mod assets in SL requires all of those things, and they're all illegal. As I said, there's a big difference between a RL item, and its SL in-world counterpart.



Sure, anything's possible. I'm still waiting on those Martians.

If the judge doesn't have half a brain, hopefully a lawyer and a different judge would. That's what appeals are for.



Amen.



Well, either your friend is very smart, or Harvard has gotten a bit dumber of late. I suspect it's the former. Either way, I doubt your friend graduated with the skills of a good trial lawyer, no matter what kind of grades he got, unless he's (pre-madcow) Denny Crane or something. That's hardly relevant to this discussion, though.

In any case, I wouldn't consider anything I've said here to be speculative (except in the few instances that were obvious as such, in which case I used qualifiers such as "most likely" to make it clear that that's what I was doing). As I said, read the law for yourself. It's quite clearly written.

I’ll refrain from quoting your lengthy dismissal of my reply, if you don’t mind, Chosen, but please excuse me if I have overlooked any points you made.

Just to begin with: where exactly do I find the small claims court in SL or even RL for that matter? And if an efficient mechanism were available to seek redress, would you have time for expensive legal shenanigans over a matter of, say, 10 dollars? I certainly don't. That doesn't help the fact that the behaviour of the individuals in question sticks in my craw and let's get real here: not every hiccup in life is dealt with over the bench.

I do not accept your assertion that I have broken the law by ripping textures for my own edification and use at all and neither do I 'feel' that I was slighted: I know that I was ripped-off in the instances I cited and I think I made that much very clear.

Calling me a criminal is somewhat harsh but greater men than I have had a healthy disrespect for the more ridiculous principles of the legal system, so I’ll put your comment down to a momentary lapse of humour and salve my ego that I'm in good company.

I do not find it hard to understand that you see my practice of ripping textures as being against the law. I just do not agree with your reasoning because, however capable your understanding may be regarding the legal principles involved, I neither consider your argument to be a practical response to the situation the OP was complaining about nor do I accept that it addresses my own reasons for doing what I do. Neither the OP’s bête noire, Mr Rebaker, nor myself are doing anything that is against the law in any practical sense, as far as I am concerned.

As for your suggestion that I should just get on with making my own textures, I am in fact creating my own skin and clothing textures these days. I understand that you are something of an educationalist so I guess you can appreciate the value of study? A great advantage in ripping textures is that it is a quick and efficient way to learn what works and what doesn't work: it's rather like studying old masters at art school, except that old masters are few and far between in SL.

I no longer care whether or not the offending businesses I complained about in my first contribution to this thread continue to thrive and I very much doubt that they care what anyone, including me, thinks of them. Like all committed breadheads, it would seem they are content to take the money and run. For my part, I have written off the cash I spent on their products, both good and bad, against the valuable lessons I learned tinkering with their textures.

Thanks for the injunction to abide by the law but neither Mr Rebaker nor I have broken any law, which I will not cease to insist unless the law clamps me in chains. In any case, I don't have a congressman to write to: quite enough people live in the US of A so that I have never had to do so.

Meanwhile, I will continue to do what I do and live in hope for the day when international law comes to its senses and properly addresses how digital information is used in practice by those estimable souls, Joe and Josephine Public and their big brother, the Government. My assertion that everyone copies isn't an excuse, it's the reality we all of us deal with on a daily basis wherever we are in the world, bar a few abstemious and apparently law-abiding individuals such as yourself, it would seem.

Televising your neighbours’ bathroom antics makes for a very entertaining analogy but, grossly comic violation of their privacy that it would indeed be, it has no more to do with the small potatoes of this issue than if you expressed a desire to drop the subject and take up market gardening. The law certainly doesn't require a rocket scientist to make it comprehensible, it just requires the expense of a very good lawyer - especially where hairy issues of copyright protection are concerned, in which case courts prefer to reserve valuable time for serious breaches as opposed to challenging members of the public on what they do behind closed doors (even when there is a third party server involved).

Copying a texture that was paid for in the first place just isn’t as reprehensible as taking cash for a shakey product one has been lumbered with through misrepresentation and other examples of the chicanery and downright incompetence we all of us seem to have experienced at one time or another in SL. Don’t you see? It’s really a very plain and simple matter of ethics: copying and altering a digital product for one’s own personal use is a perfectly harmless and indeed creative activity. Who gets to benefit from it other than the customer who already paid for the original product?

Perhaps the creator’s intellectual or artistic vanity is dented a little? That’s a small price to pay given that he or she has already made cash out of the transaction – and to hell with that brand of small-minded preciousness anyway.

Even Mr Rebaker is blameless unless someone can prove that he has resold or redistributed one of the skins he modified for his clients. Would you seriously advocate legal action against someone who has evidently committed his own copies of these textures to the trash can? Are you going to rain on the parade of his clients who are so deliriously happy that they can now wear a bra, panties and a tattoo on their butt?

The copying and manipulation of digital information is a widespread social fact, which is impossible to control since virtually everyone and every institution and every modern state is engaged in the practice of copying and manipulating digital information, without permission, whether it be on third party servers, their laptops, workstations at the office or sticking a jack in the back of a Dansette. The practice is to all intents and purposes beyond the scope of current laws because the matter is very much at the discretion of the parties engaged in this activity, which is everyone - unless life on Earth as I know it is an hallucination.

I am not blithe in the least in my dismissal of the law as you have outlined it here, because you are enthralled with a flawed instrument that needs to catch up with reality and deal with the common practice of copying in a reasonable manner. Need I remind you of a time when transmitting information using moveable type was an offence punishable by law with burning at the stake? Laughable, I know, but I doubt Gutenberg found it a particularly side-splitting threat at the time.

Split hairs all you like about the real meaning of copyright, but profit and money and income has everything to do with the practice of law regarding protection of intellectual property. Otherwise no one would give a damn about the issue. Your speculation regarding judgement if a case such as this were brought to court is quite ridiculous because it is just that. And your assertion that I have no right to tamper with textures on an item I have bought is laughable in the extreme.

By your argument it would seem that if I cut up a load of photographs and illustrations I found in a magazine - not even one I bought, mind - and then made a collage, which I proceeded to sell as my own work through a reputable art dealer (think of her as a third party server) for a considerable sum of money, that I would be guilty of copyright infringement? Condé Nast can sue me then because I did just that on several occasions with their rag Vogue.

Your suggestion that I should go back to the original artist and ask them to modify the textures for me is rubbish! I told you that in most of these cases the shysters wouldn't even respond to my complaints. Do you seriously expect me to waste valuable time pleading with them to make a modified version of their product to suit my individual taste?

Disagree with me by all means but don't take me for a fool.

My last word on saving memory is a damn good reason to rehash textures as far as I am concerned. Today I discovered quite by accident that a pair of boots I wear on a regular basis contains over 10 megabytes of textures that aren’t particularly sharp or detailed (3 megabytes are split between a flat yellow and a slightly graded yellow). I guess my opinion is somewhat subjective here but I think that is an exorbitant and unacceptable texture load for a pair of boots by any sane design standard.

For the record I am engaged in copying and streamlining the textures on the item for my own personal use since I happen to like them. However I very much prefer to look like a handsome sonofabitch than a grey ghost with balloon feet when I rez.

I will not consider contacting the creator with a complaint since I know from past experience that the prick is incapable of answering a decent notecard.

It wasn't a dismissal; it was a disagreement. I'm sorry if you refuse to accept the difference.



As I'm sure you well know, there's no such thing as a "small claims court in SL". As for the court in RL, it's typically that room near the center of town with that big building called a courthouse built around it.



The means is as follows:

1. Never ever do business with anyone who doesn't have ID and payment info on file with LL. That's just common sense.

2. For a legal preceding, LL's records could be subpoenaed, so you can find out the RL identity of the person in question.

As for whether it's worthwhile to persue it, that's entirely up to you. If you don't feel it's worth it, that's your decision, and that's where the matter should end. You don't get a license to break the law, be it copyright law or any other kind, just because it's easier.



If it sticks in your craw, that's you're own shortcoming. I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but for crying out loud be an udult about it, and get over it. If you don't like the way someone does business, don't do business with that person.



No, not every RL situation is dealt with in court, but every situation should be handled without breaking the law, always.



Again, I invite you to read the law, which you clearly have yet to do. It makes it very clear that many of the actions you've described are not legal.

Let me pick an easy one. Under the DMCA, which is written in language plain enough that a child could understand it, the ac of circumventing DRM is illegal. Here's a link to the full text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2281.ENR:

And I'll quote the most relevant portion:



By circumventing SL's permissions system to make an unauthorized copy, you are breaking the law. It's right there in black and white.

And that's before you even get to the question of whether or not the copying in and of itself also constitutes breaking the law, which it does.



I never called you a criminal. I said one of your statements was "spoken like a true criminal". Don't put words in my mouth.

But since you brought it up, what word would you pick to describe someone who routinely breaks the law?




"I didn't break the law in a practical sense, as far as I'm concerned" is your legal defense? You're kidding, right?

OK, let me give that one a try. "I know I just blew through that stop sign, Officer, but no one was coming the other way. The stop sign is intended to prevent collisions, right? No collision happened, so as far as I'm concerned, I didn't break the law in any practical sense."

You tell me. How do you think that argument would end?




Great.



Yes, I appreciate the value of study, but I don't condone IP theft in order to accomplish it. There are a great many skin makers who have voluntarily provided sample textures, full tutorials, etc., in order to help people learn. You're more than free to call upon those resources, rather than steal other ones.

You have brought up an interesting gray area, though. The Fair Use clause does make certain exceptions for educational purposes. Whether or not that trumps the DRM clause of the DMCA is open for interpretation. Fair Use claims are always judged on a case by case basis. It would be interesting to see the outcome of a case such as this.

What is clear, though, is that ripping a texture just because you don't like the presence of trademark info on the heel, or because you don't feel it's substantially different enough from another skin you previously bought, has nothing to do with education. That, unquestionably, is copyright infringement.



Good. It would have been nice if you'd reached that conclusion before you ripped the textures, though. It's easy to no longer care after you've taken your fill.




So essentially what you're saying is you believe it's not a crime if you don't get caught? I guess you were absent the day they handed out moral compasses in school. I'm sorry for you.



You don't have a congressman? May I assume that means you're not a US citizen? No matter. International treaties still apply to you, and if you feel your country's participation in such treaties should change or end, you can take it up with whatever legislative body exists in your country, assuming you live in a democracy.

In the mean time, you might want to think twice about agreeing to a TOS that requires you to abide by the laws of the State of California, and by extension, the USA, if you don't actually plan on doing that.



I'm sorry I haven't been able to get through to you. There's usually little reasoning to be had with pirates, though, so it's not exactly surprising.



Let me get this straight. You're trying to claim that "everyone else does it, so it's not so bad that I do it, too" is not an excuse? Wow. Exactly what do you think the word "excuse" means?

I'd like to think that law-abiding individuals such as myself are not quite as much a minority as you'd like to imply. There's obviously no way to measure, though.




So now you're saying that your breach of the law just isn't important enough to make a stink about? I think you'd feel differently if you were the one whose IP were being stolen. It's just as real of a violation against a real human being as invading privacy would be. The fact that you choose to describe it as "small potatoes" doesn't make it any less wrong.




No, it just requires reading. I'm not trying to say lawyers do not have a purpose (mine has been invaluable to me over the years), but that purpose is not to make it so you can understand the law more easily. That's your own responsibility. "I didn't understand the law" is not a defense.



There's nothing "hairy" about it. For the umpteenth time, just read the thing. It's written in plain English. It's very easy to understand.



And you know what courts prefer to do, exactly how? When was the last time you actually went to court?

I don't know how things work where you are, but here in the US, small claims court exists specifically to take care of issues like this, in which small amounts of money are involved.




Yes, it is. In fact, I'd argue that it's worse. Misrepresentation isn't always deliberate. Sometimes, it's a matter of opinion. But ripping a texture requires deliberate illegal action. There is a difference there.

In any case, the "my crime wasn't as bad as his behavior" argument doesn't work. What the original creator did or did not do has no bearing on YOUR actions. Take responsibility already, will you? If you choose to rip a texture, it's your decision and yours alone.

Further, as I said in my previous post, you are completely misunderstanding what it means to "buy" something in SL. You aren't buying the item itself. You're buying the right to use it for very limited purposes. You don't own the texture just because you bought a skin. What you own is the right to put that skin on your avatar. That's all.



Again, you didn't pay for the product. You paid for the right to use it in a certain form, for certain purposes. You absolutely did not buy the right to rip a copy of it to your own hard drive, to alter it in any way, or to re-upload your own version of it.

And it's not "harmless" at all. First, we only have your word for it that you won't further distribute it. Second, as I said before, if you want an altered version of it, the original creator has the right to decide whether such a version should exist. To infringe upon that right is to harm the creator, no matter how you hard you try to pretend otherwise, in order to justify it to yourself.




It's got nothing to do with vanity. It's a question of rights.




Absolutely not true, as has already been discussed at great length in this thread.



As a rule, yes, I absolutely would advocate legal action against someone performing this "service". If I found you were ripping any of my IP, you better believe you and I would have a date in court. I take my rights, and all matters of principle, VERY seriously.

But the point is moot in this particular case. The person in question has already agreed to stop.



Yes. Their happiness or lack thereof can not and does not trump the original creators' IP rights. And there's no excuse whatsoever for breaking the law.

Look, all of us would love it if the avatar layering system were more flexible, so that people could composite outfits any way they want (which again, has been discussed at great length in this thread and elsewhere). But LL's lack of action on that does not give anyone license to break the law.



Again, you resort to the "everyone's doing it" argument. That's pretty weak.

As I said, it's not about whether you can get away with it. It's about right and wrong. What you're doing is wrong. The fact that no one is ever likely to be able to stop you doesn't change that in any way.




Whether you feel the law is outdated or not, you are still obligated to abide by it. You don't get to break it just because you don't agree with it.

If you want it changed, take it up with lawmakers. Even better, run for office yourself, and write whatever new law you feel is appropriate. Good luck getting it passed.




Let's not invent fictions. Show me any statute ever written at any time in the history of any country on this planet that assigned burning at the stake to be a legal punishment for the use of movable type. Talk about hallucinations... Come on.





I'm sorry for you if you think money is the only reason people care about issues. What a dismal outlook on life. I hope you find a more happiness-prone point of view one day.



Oh, and your own speculation wasn't? Let's not forget who opened that particular box. That was all you.



How many times do I have to explain it? You didn't buy the texture. You didn't even buy the item. What you bought was the right to use a digital asset in whole, not in part, in a very limited fashion, within the confines of the Second Life service. That's it.

The only thing "laughable" is your stubborn refusal to accept that fact.



No, that's not my assertion at all. Again, how many times do I have to keep re-explaining the same points?

When you cut up a RL magaizine, you're not making any new copies of anything. You have the right to do whatever you want with the existing volume that's in your hand. What you don't have the right to do is reproduce the magazine, in whole or in part, without the express permission of its copyright holder(s).



No, no one could sue you for that. You did nothing wrong.

Had your activities required making unauthorized copies, then they could sue you. But you didn't do that.

Once again, RL items are not the same thing as SL items.



Ask them once. If they ignore you or if they say no, live without the alterations. It's that simple.



OK, I haven't and I won't. You're quite obviously reaching as far and hard as you can to self-justify your actions, but that doesn't mean you're a fool. I never said or implied otherwise. If you're starting to feel foolish, perhaps you should look inward to figure out why.



Yes, that's an unacceptable texture load. But it doesn't give you the right to break the law. If you don't like the way those boots are put together, don't use them.



How about simply making your own instead of illegally ripping apart the one made by someone else?



If you don't like the way the guy conducts his business, simply don't do business with him anymore. But don't steal his IP. "Pricks" have rights, too. Not liking a person doesn't give you license to infringe on their copyright. Be the better person.

My Goddess these posts give War and Peace and run for the money.