New Copyright Threat Warning

*face palms* jesus bloody. he claims he doesn't use copybot. what kind of a moron does he take us for. only copybot and the use of GLIntercept will grab textures of avatars so far to my knowledge unless this guy has discovered a severe hole i nthe viewer code that needs immediate patching. but on the logistics side of things this guy should be sent to court for multiple IP copyright violations because he still does not have the legal consent of the original artist to even touch those textures.

Copyright law is not as simple as you make it sound.

And it's not just "copybot and glintercept". There are dozens of ways to get textures.

Content providers each have a different intent for the use of their creation.

The original work is owned by the creator. The purchaser of the content is only buying the rights to use the content under the terms of the license. The terms of the license are set forth in the permissions granted by the creator at the time of transfer.

Simply, if all three permissions are checked as yes on both textures what he is doing is fine. If any one permission is checked no on either texture he is either breaking copyright law or TOS.

Assuming the textures involved are set to "NO: Next Owner Transfer" the fallowing applies.



If this guy is providing his service for skins or tattoos that are set to "NO: Next Owner Modify" or "NO: Next Owner Copy" he and (more importantly) the person purchasing his service are breaking the law.

If both the skin and the tattoo are set to "YES: Next Owner Modify" and "YES: Next Owner Copy" his service is completely legitimate.

As anyone who sells any thing in SL knows, the permissions that we are allowed to set are very limiting in terms of what we might want done with our content. I for one would allow my tattoos to be baked in this fashion for legitimate owners and other creators would not. There are many times that a specific person will be granted a different license than the general public.
For legal reasons content providers may consider including a note card set to no modify with their creations stating the terms of the license they are providing as bound by Second Life's TOS.

Mods should lock this thread. Nothing new has been said on it in a long time; people read the first few posts and then post their replies, without regards for the fact that the person providing the service voluntarily stopped after learning that it could be used by the service user to duplicate no-copy content.

TO ANYONE WHO THINKS THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD HERE: I suggest you read the whole thread first. If you can't bother, then don't bother posting, because you're probably just wasting your time.

I recommend we all start reporting SL "DJs" for unauthorized public broadcast of the mp3's they are playing. I always seem to get banned from SL parties when I ask if the person running the audio stream is paying royalties on what they are commercially broadcasting (tips+pay for "spinning".

Bring up someone reusing a prim or texture without authorization and OH LAWDY DMCA IS GONNA GET YOU!

Then there's all that Daft Punk stuff with full albums embedded into a crappy looking knock off of their RL gig robot helmets going for $700L a pop.

I see a double standard here.

Speaking specifically about the license and what it allows opens up a whole new can of worms, which I have deliberately chosen not to bring up before:

Unless you are specifically *licensing* things (primarily, intend to reclaim it when a certain time is up), you cannot call the transaction a license. It shows all characteristics of a sale, in wording and terms, and as such, *first sale doctrine applies*.
This has been tested in court. (Vernor vs Autodesk and UMG Recordings vs Augusto).

I am somewhat hesitant to bring up this point, since I feel that the copy/no-trans is a very useful compromise in SL context, and not something I really want to challenge, but when you get down to it, the no-transfer setting is arguably illegal under current precedent.

But my main point here is (somewhat parallel to what Cale has said earlier): People do not have carte blanche to invent restrictions and simply write them in a "license".

Oooh! an actual FACT! Yay! That trumps all my op-ed posts.

This thread just won't die, will it?

I've stayed out of its last few resurrections, since absolutely no new points were raised, but this latest post from Tali is something I think deserves addressing. Here goes.


(By the way, before I begin, let me just reiterate that I really do wish the system were made more robust, so that the legal questions we've discussed in this thread would no longer be an issue. Users absolutely should be given the flexibility they need, so all kinds of customization of existing artwork can be done, without violating existing copyright law. Unfortunately, though, the system is not there yet, and we have to work with what we've got. So when I present the legal reasons why something can't be done, please don't mistake that to mean I think it shouldn't be done at all. It's just that how things SHOULD be and how things ARE are not the same. I support users' desires to have exactly what they want. I just can't condone breaking the law in order to get it, no matter how asinine certain aspects of SL may be.)





I'm not sure where you're getting that, Tali. The subjects of time and/or revocability are not, and have never been, requirements for licenses. While these things CAN certainly be conditions of license, they definitely don't have to be.

For example, I issue perpetual and/or irrevocable licenses all the time in my work (both in and out of SL). In such cases, the client retains the rights granted by, and is limited to any restrictions imposed by, the license, forever. At no time would I ever need to, or even have to intend to, "reclaim" anything in order for the conditions of the license to be in effect.




Actually, it shows no characteristics of a sale, whatsoever. Let's talk about the "wording and terms". The specific wording we all agree to when we enroll to use the SL service is the TOS. This is a legally binding agreement between LL and each of us users, which makes it extremely clear that just about EVERYTHING we do in SL is based on licensing, not on end consumer ownership.

The first example of this is the currency we use in-world. It is itself is nothing more than a function of the SL service, made available to users as a licensed right. When you "buy" Linden Dollars, you're not taking ownership of an item. You're simply paying for the right to access the part of the SL service that simulates a monetary system. Among other clauses of the TOS, I would refer you first to Section 1.4, which says, "Regardless of terminology used, Linden Dollars represent a limited license right governed solely under the terms of this Agreement."

We could go on all day talking about all the other reasons why no "purchase" in SL is really a sale of goods, but that point about the currency really is enough. Surely if the currency is a licensed right, then so are all the other in-world services it can be traded for, including the service of being able to view copies (or in many cases, only apparent copies) of virtual goods via your inventory.

I will also cite one more, equally important, if not more important, point, which is the fact that LL owns all the data. While content creators own all intellectual property they create and/or upload to the service, LL owns all the actual in-world copies. Users own nothing at all. Take a look at Section 3.3, which says "Linden Lab retains ownership of the account and related data, regardless of intellectual property rights you may have in content you create or otherwise own."

When you "buy" an item in SL, you're simply accessing another part of the SL service you didn't have access to before. You're not actually taking ownership of anything.

First Sale cannot apply to any "property" in SL for this very simple reason (among others). No user of SL actually owns any copies of anything within it. LL owns all the data, every last bit of it. This is very important to understand.




Those cases don't apply, for two main reasons (among many others):

1. They deal specifically with individual copies, which were purchased by end consumers. But as we've discussed, users in SL don't own anything. We are simply granted the limited right to use certain aspects of the SL service, one of which happens to be 'simulated shopping'. The simulation is not the same thing as making real purchases.

2. They deal with the resale of purchased goods, which the first purchaser will no longer retain in any way, shape, or form, after the resale. That's simply not the case in SL. If a copyable item is resold in SL, the second purchaser ends up with a second copy, and the first copy is still in the first purchaser's inventory. That's entirely different from what the cases you cited were about.

If there were a way to transfer copyable items without making additional copies, then there would be an analog to First Sale principles. The doctrine still wouldn't really apply from any legal standpoint, since again, all we're talking about is a simulation, in which no actual property changes hands, as all copies of the data are owned by the same party (LL), from start to finish. But it would make for a compelling enough simulation of First Sale for some interesting arguments to be made. However, as we all well know, that's simply not how the system works, so the point is moot.




No, it's not illegal. If we were talking about actual purchases of goods, you might have something there. But the fact is we're not. Once again, all we're talking about are limited use rights to access certain parts of the SL service. That's it.

Remember, it's LL's data, and it's content creators' IP. There are no purchasers of goods in SL at all. There are only users of the service.




That's true, but not in the way you're implying. I can't license you to do something I don't have any legal control over, like I can't give you the right not to have to stop at traffic lights. But I can certainly grant you a limited license to what I DO control, such as the use of various parts of a service I'm providing to you, or the copyright on my own intellectual property. And as we've covered a few times now, that's all a "purchase" in SL is, the limited right to use a part of the SL service, and the limited right to use someone else's IP, nothing more.

If you want to challenge the TOS in court, and make a claim that purchasing virtual goods in SL is not merely accessing parts of the service, but is indeed making real purchases of real (intangible) goods, go right ahead. I don't think you'll get very far, though. But whether you would or you wouldn't, the fact is we all did agree to the TOS when we enrolled, and an agreement is an agreement, until a judge says otherwise. We all must abide by the agreements we've made (not top mention the parts of the law that actually are applicable here, like DMCA, for example, which says digital rights management shall not be messed with, no matter how poorly implemented).

Well, it's a fact that those cases happened, yes. But they're not actually applicable to this topic. Read my post above.

Your post was well-reasoned, but I believe a reasonable court could disagree, stating that a 'sale' in a virtual world should be treated the same as a sale in the real world, since so many of the same factors apply. The details about the currency don't matter any more than if I bought something using poker chips.

But I admit there's a difference between buying the ability to use data and buying a tangible object, which might affect first-right-of-sale doctrine and possibly other aspects.

(BTW, I also believe that a reasonable court could agree with you.)

In any case, this is all moot, because the service violates DMCA (and therefore against ToS) for the simple technical reasons I keep repeating, and which nobody has pointed out any reasonable defense against. The fact that I think this particular aspect of DMCA is overly broad and very bad legislation is beside the point.

Still, it was interesting to see an actual fact presented, as well as your argument about it's applicability.

Oops, I'm repeating myself. Dammit!

Lear, you've got me thinking slightly differently now. Tali, my apologies if I missed your point, either in whole or in part, the first time around. I was looking at the subject a little too narrowly, I think.

Upon further reflection, my previous argument probably should be revised somewhat. I'm now intrigued by the question of whether or not a limited use right should in itself be treated as a salable item, under First Sale. If I license a right from you, can I then transfer that right to someone else, even if the license says I can't, as long as an inevitable consequence of so doing is to relinquish my own continued ability to exercise said right? It's a really interesting question.

Assuming it could be made technically feasible, the end result would be that no additional 'copy' of the right would be floating around, which would seem to fall within the spirit of First Sale. We'd then need to address the question of precisely how and whether the specific right in question here, the right to access data, fits into copyright law in the first place, which is perhaps an even bigger subject, even though it's secondary. And of course, in order to avoid other legal barriers, DMCA would need to be revised (which it should be, anyway), or else a workable system would need to be invented that could operate within its confines.

This would make for one hell of a stimulating case to watch unfold, if nothing else. I hope someone brings it to court one day.



On a side note, we're well and truly off topic from the thread starter at this point, and on to a much better (even if related) discussion. This is good. It's just too bad it took 23 pages of repetition to get here.

That is essentially the core of the cases I cited, and the rulings there went, yes, you *can* transfer such licenses.
Whether this applies in SL is indeed quite untested waters, but I personally do believe it is the right direction to aim for, to let a "virtual world" become a "true" platform for actual transactions, and not "just a game" where everything can disappear because the framework somehow changes.


As more and more "products" go digital, this is a question which *must* be addressed. That is one of the things I find intriguing about SL; with it's purely digital and highly international nature, it is a sandbox for a lot of problems and discussions which will only become more important in the real world in the coming years.


Various variations of it *are* indeed ongoing here in Europe, notably in the "consumer rights vs DRM" area, where they tend to fall to the consumer rights side, as opposed to the US cases which tend to fall to the DRM side. (Based on the fairly new DMCA. Interestingly, as late as 2004, the ban on circumventing DRM was found unconstitutional).


As I said, a whole new can of worms

It's ironic that LL started out saying that right of first sale was an important part in the design of the rules, that either you could sell a product as licensed (no-transfer) or as a product (no-copy) but not BOTH no-copy/no-transfer. You could not prevent people from deleting content from an object, because otherwise you could use that as a loophole to create no-copy no-transfer items.

They later on removed that comment from their website and claimed that deleting content from an object was an exploit.

I still say the rebroadcast of digital music is the biggest violation in SL, yet it never gets long-winded posts quite the same as couple of linked prims that took someone 10 minutes to make.

I do not think that anyone could agree with what you posted, no matter what side of the fence they are on. Two problems with your argument:

One) Rebroadcast of digital music takes no money from creators.

Two) 10 minutes to make? Are you out of your freakin mind Jeez Hyper! It is easy to spend 10 hours on a creation. I and others here have even spent muuuuuuuch more then that on some projects. Ask Chosen how many hours he put into his sculpty robot. I would bet somewhere in the neighborhood of 200+ hours.

But if you want, you can try to impress us and post a picture of the best creation you have ever created in only 10 minutes

Technically, I mean, technically, if you want to get technical about it... it doesn't happen inside SL at all. All SL provides is a link, and if the rebroadcast is from an ASCAP/BMI/... approved server like Live365 there's no violation at all. If there is a violation, it's happening on some random unlicensed internet radio stream.

By that argument, copying SL products takes no money from creators.

You're appropriately named.

This thread has nothing to do with prim-built products. Skins worth ripping generally take quite a bit of time, effort, and skill to make.

In any case, I look at use of music in private areas the same way as using your stereo in your home. In a public venue, organizations like ASCAP and BMI are responsible for collecting royalties. I'm sure that if they're even aware of it, they consider it small potatos. But, no doubt, eventually they'll creep in and spoil things as they often do for local coffee houses.

In any case, I still think it's small potatos. I'm a musician and songwriter and have copyrighted works. I believe in strong but reasonable copyright protection for artists. I find it amusing that the biggest crybabies pretending to claim protection of copyright holders are the big music industry companies, who have ripped off more dollars from copyright holders than the pirates they're fighting. Regardless, I'm deeply against piracy.

In any case, this is all beside the point of this thread. Your point is valid, but the reason is obvious: there are lots more content creators here protecting their content, than music copyright holders protecting theirs.

If you're trying to say that skin makers who object to this service who also hold public parties using broadcast streams without paying appropriate royalties are using a double standard, then I agree. They're violating the very same principle that they expect others to live up to.

Yeah, they don't really frame up DJing in SL as a "private" performance with all the "BE SURE TO TIP THE DJ AND ENTERTAINERS!" going on in those places. They call themselves online clubs and the music is the draw. So, I'm sorry, but they are just as much of a business as the pixel pushers are.

Way to try to play down that which does not impact you directly.

Perhaps Shoutcast and other online music services could use the private performance angle. Hell, when I put MP3's up on a torrent or other file share, that's just sharing with a couple of friends, right?

Now you know what I was refering to There is no outrage because it is not taking money from any SL creators.

That's not what I did. I played down what's not terribly significant. The subject of this post does not affect me directly, since I make no skins. Online plays are not terribly significant, because added up, the royalties wouldn't amount to a hill of beans, or the ASCAP/BMI guys would be in here, enforcing.

You're reading things into my post that aren't there. Read again, and you'll see that I'm agreeing with much of your post, albeit less bombastically, and with less hyperbole.