New Copyright Threat Warning

Tali is right. As an EU citizen, the DCMA doesn't apply to me personally, and what I was doing would have been OK under personal usage rights here. However, I do recognise that SL is covered by US law and that when you agree to play the game and sign up to the TOS, you agree to abide by those rules.

i have to confess i skipped afew pages of this at the point peoples asses started to pucker up and get all " i know more than you do about blhaa blhaa " so forgive me if this seems a bit out of context .

But

WHO here does not have one single song that they downloladed from the interweb ? ......maybe the odd ripped DVD of a blockbuster movie tucked in the shelf next to the ones they bought from Betterbuy ?

I would hazzard a guess here and say we all do ... right ?


Did anyone think " omg i better not dl this song coz poor Britney spears is loosing cash ! " ...... or " Oh i better not watch this movie that i got from a friend of a friend coz Poor little Tom Cruse will be out of pocket or maybe feel offended as an artist !

lol ...please !

Im not pointing fingers here ( i know a lot of you from prior dealings in SL and most of you are a fine bunch of talented creators ) but i hear you guys hinting at " i know how its done but im not gonna say here " and that just leaves me thinking .... HOW do you know ?.... you tryed it ?.... if so why ?... to see if it works ? ...lol

Again ..sorry if this comes a bit out of context from the rest of this ... but i dont have time to read a load of comments about people trying to prove others wrong .

I understand the OP's issue ... in full ..... but the original post come across as a dramatic and agressive pick for an argument that she / he would know that would get full backing from pretty much anyone who has ever created anything in SL that they value enough to sell ..... a kind of " I can't loose this fight so im gonna start it "

Dont get me wrong i could see why people would be upset about this .... but my thoughts are simple ...To the OP ... be secure in your Creation's ... your business modle... and your way of running your business and you will be here long afterthis guy has vapourised !

and on an even more simple note ......unless your making vaste amounts of cash in SL and stand to loose a shedload of cash .. your home ... your car over this guy ( my guess is your not and you won't ) just report it ... let LL look at it ... and enjoy your day .

Im on no one side here you all suck equally

OK, well since you've wondered, or speculated...

- this is not directed at Lost, or any one in particular, but to the argument in general -

I'm the OP, and while I confess that I may have come off a bit alarmist, and possibly over exaggerated a point or two (god knows that's unfair, as the opposing view point certainly has stuck to the facts) I think the above statement about Britney and Tom here is quite ironic.

So lets lay it all out here so that we know what we're really talking about.

I was injured on the job about 4 years ago, no fault of my own - chemical exposure due to negligent owner - left me mentally rattled for a time and with great difficulty breathing. No biggie, s%#t happens and I'm not complaining, but I'll never again be able to make a living the way I did.

I live well below subsistence. After rent and bills I end up with about $180/month for everything else - food, meds, laundry, and when I found SL I thought this is something I can do to bring in a few bucks and maybe not fall quite as short every month.

So I got to it when I could, and I've put about $250 of my own money - an investment that meant not eating on occasion - into my little SL venture, setting up, tier fees, uploading files. and to date, almost a year and a half later and a stupid amount of work, I still haven't taken a cent out. If I wrapped it up, shut down shop and cashed out I'd maybe get about $170. And after starting this thread, (which I am genuinely sorry for now) even though my wildest dreams were to get to a point where I could take out like $30 or $40 a month for groceries, I'm pretty convinced that its a pipe dream and that I should give it up and stop killing myself over it, because trust me, its not worth it at the best of times.

Dealing with the drama, running around after dodgy "mall" owners who either vanish with your lindens or move every two weeks on a whim and expect you to jump and reset all of your stuff, and yes, while I fully recognize that 99% of the people are good, there are a genuinely unscrupulous few who do exist and will rip you off and make your life hell. And as others have observed here and experienced, it may be a small percentage but in the digital world the damage they do can be fast and felt.

Maybe that's the disconnect, and I've tried to point it out. This ain't Britney or Tom Cruze. It is the geek in the basement down the block, somebody's uncle who's just trying to get back on his feet, or somebody who's just learning the world of 3D and texturing and is trying to scrape up enough to buy a decent graphics program.

Or just a hobbyist who's having some fun and who might have made a couple bucks, but not tons by any means. Not - by a long shot - enough to deserve the kinds of insults and accusations that have been leveled here. Even they haven't made what they deserve for their efforts.

Yes, big corporations do exist in SL, and if you go to their beautifully appointed islands and use "the program" to rip their logo or expensive textures either to think of yourself as an activist striking a blow for the misused consumer, or even just cause you wanted them... big freakin' deal. They won't feel it, probably won't notice or come looking for you.

But save me the crap about elitism, condescension and greed if I get a little freaked out when you do it to me, cause argue all you want to the contrary, it has a very real impact.

I apologize if I went overboard or offended anybody.

Edited: to delete the name of "the program" as requested by Lost McKay

Rudee my post was not ment to upset you or anyone , and if it did im very sorry .. really i am .

I think what i was trying to say was this ..

You went to the guy ( used the word "confronted " ) and went at him ( speculating ) what it was he was doing was wrong ( we all know he is using a ripper to do it btw its not rocket science here ) You had a talk with him ( while in your mind knowing you knew what he was doing was wrong according to the TOS ) with intent to catch him out and get him to admit it ... did you think he would ?

So based on what you said brings me to the " Looking for a fight " comment .

Then comming here and making your post knowing full well that 95 % of the people who read this forum will back you up ( Including myself btw ) and god help anyone who has a diffrrent opinion ?

Thats what prompted my " Dramatic " comment

At what point did you stop to report this to LL ?


You get my point ?



Its fair to say a post like this will get attention coz it applys to all of us ... Creators ... artists ....as i said , Anyone who ever created something of value to them ...All will chime in and back you up .

It did kind of turn into " I know more about law than you do " and " Yeah i have been aroud and i know how he's doin it "...Its at that point i stopped reading and started thinking for myself for a second .

Evryone shouting the odd's here about the rights and wrongs of it but i " speculated " each and everyone has ripped MP3's and DVD's stored on disc's and HD's around the house

Glass house's anyone ?

Sounds like you have had a rough time Rudee and im sorry to hear that ... and thats the only reason im here explaining my post a little more .

I will however stick to what i said ..

Stick to your thing ......be confident in your product and how YOU conduct yourself ..... File a report on the guy .... let LL pick up the drama ... Enjoy what you do in your second life and be good at what you do ... the rewards will come in the end ( And im pretty sure everyone who has made it in SL will agree fully with me on that point )

Edit : can you remove the "keyword " in your post ...not sure how ll stand on putting it in the forum ... just a pointer

Edit :Thank you Rudee

Sorry Lost,

I edited while I thought you were offline then noticed you'd come on and were replying. I apologize if it caused any confusion. My comments weren't directed toward you and I had no problem with what you said and indeed have said the same to many others myself.

I didn't really start this thread with any other intention but to open a dialog on the subject, but I don't often get involved in forums as they seem to get surreal all too quickly, and from the beginning I've felt a bit like a duck out of water and just as clumsy.

I had no idea what to expect, and certainly didn't see this coming. I honestly didn't think it would get more than a couple views, and as I've said earlier, Enkidu and I got off on the wrong foot in our first conversation, and knowing he frequented this forum I'd hoped one of the views would be him so that we might avoid reports. Yes, even that was the wrong way to approach it, I admit, but I was at a bit of a loss, and by the time I'd realized it, it was too late. BTW, he's represented himself very well here, and I think gained a lot of respect.

As to the "keyword" I and others took great care to avoid it and be conscientious, but some went out of their way to mention it and proudly so, as if it was a "cause." The truly sad thing is that all I achieved in the end was to give them another platform for it.

That is the main reason I've considered packing it in, and not your comments, because while these few may feel they have some very valid point in pushing this issue and the software into the public eye, I think its truly sad, irresponsible and a bit cowardly that they've chosen SL as their soapbox in this, as there is real greed and gouging going on in the world today - anyone who's watched the news over the last week will know - but SL is one of the rare and few places any average Jane or Joe can really go, and with almost no money, start a business without having to go through or be buried by a large corporation.

I really can't help thinking that while they fancy themselves as some kind of digital Robin Hood, by doing it here they are only succeeding in doing exactly what they accuse the corporations of themselves.

Edit: And its not this particular program. I know that it's not really capable of putting that big a dent in my tattoo work. Its the attitude. It's hard enough fighting just to get something going, and there's always someone trying to undermine you, but this seems both hateful and pointless.

Just a question:

Is it against the rules to use a skin ripper? Yes or no?

I'm sure a blind eye is turned for personal use, but technically, is it against the rules?

What the gentleman in question is doing, while I'm sure with the best of intentions, is, in fact, against the rules, as far as I can see. Am I incorrect?

Is ripping a skin, then reselling it, against the rules? Yes.

Is what this guy is doing wrong? Not really. I think even Chip (By the way, Chip, I was going to mention that you should speed it up. I mean come on! *grin*) has said, not in so many words, that what this guy is doing, while technically wrong, isn't so bad.

However, it sets a precedent.

Now, as for "Price Gouging" and "Extortion" and all the other hyperbolic nonsense...

Just another question...

What gives you the right to tell ANYONE how much they should charge?
You don't get to do that. As a consumer, you get two options. Buy or don't.

To denounce ANYONE for trying to make a living and run a business is just plain, outright self-entitlement!

Do you go into a shoe store and say "Yeah... these Chuck Taylor All-Stars? I think $40 is too much. I'll give you $10 for 'em." and expect the guy to say "Oh.. ok. Sure."?

It's ridiculous.

Oh, and.. um... why SHOULDN'T someone expect to get paid RL rates for equivalent work? ESPECIALLY for custom work, ESPECIALLY when they could invest the time and money into a regular product that they can sell unlimited and make WAY more money?

My partner and I opened a small custom furry avatar business, in hopes that some of the more serious "I want my AV to look exactly how I want it" folks might be interested, and to help folks get the most out of their SL.

"I want a Full Quadruped AV with AO, all animations (about 40, all told), effects, textures, the whole 9 yards. I'll pay L$1500"

"I want a full retexture on {another company's AV} I'll pay you L$150"

and then, when we tried to explain that it just wasn't feasible for us to do it for that sort of money, the stream of bile and invective that flowed, almost to a man, caused us to just shut it down.

So I ask. If a creator running a successful business, making a VERY decent wage off of SL, why shouldn't they a) want to protect their hard work and b) expect to get paid a decent rate?

QFT. That is the real magic and beauty of SL (or used to be anyway), that it's a place where the average person with a bit of sweat and inspiration can find success and actually have an advantage over big corporations. It's sad to hear people apply the same reasoning to ignoring copyright law here that people use to justify dowloading MP3's or DVD's through bit torret - that the greedy SOBs have it coming, because people like you and me, well we're just like the RIAA don't you know. At that moment we stop being peers, stop being average citizens, stop being small-time craftsment just trying to eek out a living, and morph into anti-competitive, monopolistic, faceless corporations who deserve what's coming to them.

Copyright law has its problems, as does the DMCA, and I doubt there's anyone here who doesn't understand the issues people have with them, but it isn't people like Disney who get hurt here by the free culture warriors and the self-styled Robin Hoods - It's our peers. It's self-employed artists like me who from month to month don't know where their next mortgage payment is coming from. It's retirees trying to bring in some extra income over and above the meager living social security provides. It's disabled people. It's stay at home moms. It's college kids hoping to earn some pocket change. It's individuals just trying to get by. Britney Spears indeed.

It's your specific use of the textures that determines whether you're infringing or not, not merely the act of extracting them.

If you bought the skin but reupload the textures to create a new skin and you never give it out to anyone then you're not doing anything wrong as long as you don't transfer ownership of the original to anyone else.

That's without taking permissions into account though. If you bypass the permissions system you're in breach of the TOS regardless of whether your actions infringe on anything or not.

Let's hope you never questioned the price of gas/oil then because those poor oil companies are just trying to make a living too.

(And no, the amount of money involved doesn't make any difference. It's either self-entitlement in all cases or in no case)

Because "decent" is a subjective word so you'll never get everyone to agree.

Chip feels he should be making $5,000 for 20-30 hours of work, or $250/hour. That's miles beyond "decent" in my opinion.

As far as protecting their hard work: few care to. Instead of actually going after those who are infringing content creators instead amuse themselves by being a pain to those who actually did pay for their content by inventing one ridciulous restriction after another.

$200/hr - lower than market rate for high end 3d animation work (depending on the market). So tell me, Kitty, I imagine you have a job. Do you expect to be paid a salary in line with industry standards for whatever it is you do, or do you tell your employer "hey that's okay, I don't really need that. Just pay me half."

Freelance rates are high by nature because unlike on-staff workers, you may only get 3 or 4 paychecks per year. But you go right ahead prancing around on your high horse passing judgment on people and things you know little if anything about.

This isn't about what you get paid in RL, it's about expectations of wages for doing things in SL.

Mickey used the term "expect a decent rate" while that's not a yes/no question because it ultimately depends on your definition of "decent".

If someone can't or barely make tier I have no problem agreeing that it's too bad since that's a fair expectation, even if someone is totally committed to SL and wants to make an average RL wage from it I'd think that's not too outrageous an expectation, but someone saying they're doing poorly because they're not making their expected wage of $200+/hour is so far removed from that that I wouldn't ever label it a "decent expectation".

If someone can make it work, then that's perfectly alright, but having the *expectation* that they need to make that much just to do "ok" is absolutely ludicrous and out of proportion.

(Edited since the "you"'s were intended as general but that didn't come across very well)

Here's the thing, though.

You don't get to define "decent" to me.

I do.

This is what I mean by Self-Entitled.

Your definintion of "decent wage", as applies to me, is meaningless.

You say:

"If you bought the skin but reupload the textures to create a new skin and you never give it out to anyone then you're not doing anything wrong as long as you don't transfer ownership of the original to anyone else."

Here's the thing. In the scenario posited by the OP, it is, in fact, a third party ripping, altering and uploading the texture. Ownership has been transferred, albeit temporarily, and that, as you say, is wrong.

As for your "Oil Company" scenario...

well, that's just ridiculous.

People's time when it comes to SL related things is not somehow different than real world time. The cost of living at the end of the month is the same regardless of whether the hours available to work are devoted to Second Life projects or outside work. Would you suggest to someone that the internet in general is not the real world and they should only expect to earn play money if they're contracted to create a website? I think everyone would agree that that would be rather silly, so why do you think SL should be any different? We're all constrained by what people are willing to pay, and for SL contract work that's about 1/5th of what it would be for the same work anywhere else, and for time devoted to retail products it's about the same as what someone might make at a low wage job (if they're lucky). Certainly there are a few people in SL really raking it in but they're very few and far between. It really blows my mind that people think someone earning what they might earn chopping lettuce at McDonald's is greedy and asking too much. It's insulting.

1. I know because I have been a victim of "IT" many times over.
2. Yes! (know how your enemy works, and know his/her tools!)
3. To know "IT's" limitations (see #2, also)
4. Obviously "IT" does, otherwise "IT" wouldn't be a problem.

What really compounds the problem is the unfulfilled need to give consumers control over the avatar options they want with skins and makeup/tattoos that occupy the same slots in the same asset. Linden Lab has had the ball in it's court for the last 3-4 years! The first thing they could have done to start to fix the problem would have been to open up at least one extra asset for head to toe layers between the skin/tattoo and the clothing layers. That would have eliminated the need to use 3rd party software to intercept avatar textures for personal modification in 90% of situiations. Of course, unscrupulous people would use "IT" for ill gotten gains, regardless.

I feel we are well beyond the point of ever returning to the extra avatar layer option, and Linden Lab knows it. Linden Lab should have listened to IBM over a year ago and adopted, at the earliest possible moment, a cloud based computer model where there is no need for a client/server software model. We could be working with far more secure assets on infinite layer sets by now.

After hearing from Enkidu and reading other's comments I can see the business model Enkidu was trying to set up was trying to keep the best interests of all parties in mind, but I still want to make clear my reasons why it doesn't.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
All points made beyond this line are academic, since Enkindu is not following through with this business model. Also, the thread has seemingly deviated from the original topic of texture copying business models to something else, so bear with me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It was a nice idea, but it falls short in three critical areas:

1. The business model strips away an original content creator's right to exclusively distibute their own IP. Unless Enkidu reaches an agreement with each and every content creator he/she rips a texture from, the moment he/she distributes that IP to another party, Enkidu is in breach of a fundamental copyright under U.S. copyright law.

2. The original creator's names are also stripped from the assets during the upload process. This is one of a few if not the only thing that positively identifies a work with it's creator. Even if Enkidu was to include all the original creator's names in the description area of a NO MOD, NO TRANSFER asset (which is the only permissions setting that works for retaining the description and restricting ownership), his/her name would still be listed as "Creator". That is a problem as many know who have received IM's from other residents asking for help on products they did not create. The likely culprits these days are modifyable note cards that others have mistakenly, or ignorantly copied and used in their own products. A lot of people are confused by multiple inconsistent asset properties. Expecting them to look in a description or separate asset modified by a third party to find the original creator names is unacceptable. Creators NEED to retain ownership of their IP in some tangible way in this environment, and the "Creator" description is possibly the only thin thread that allows them to do that with avatar assets. Once that thread is broken it's virtually impossible to find out who created what. Case in point - Look at all the threads in this forum asking "Who makes this skin?" where the asset either has someone elses name (obviously someone who doesn't sell skins) attached to it, or the infamous "Nobody" as "Creator" in the asset properties. Many of these assets come with full permissions (intentionally or unintentionally) and can originate from almost any source, legitimate or not. This brings me to my third point, human error.

3. Human error, specifically around permissions settings, is exponentially compounded in such a business model. I'd hate to see how many "accidents" happen with multiple similar services serving up other peoples IP as dirivative works. I have already heard of stories where a creator accidently releases one of their own assets with the wrong permissions settings. It's very easy to do unless one is extremely vigilant (one of the other problems with the current permissions system). I have done this on one occasion at least in the last 4 years I've been creating stuff. I was lucky enough that the person who got the product (an eye set) emmediately let me know about the problem so I could fix it in my inventory before distibuting more. They gave me their word that they deleted the full permissions eyes, and I have no reason to doubt them.

In summary, Enkidu's business model bravely attempts to fill a void in the avatar asset system, but unfortunately it does so by unauthorized third party distribution, destroying the ties creators have with their IP through the asset properties, and potentially compounding human error in such distribution.

What I said was: "That's miles beyond "decent" in my opinion." I didn't define decent for you, I defined it for me.

I didn't say it was wrong, I said it's a violation of the TOS to bypass permissions for any reason.

The only reason I picked gas is because it's a common thing to complain about these days and it has as little to do with self-entitlement as it does when it's about something on SL.

Actually I said that's perfectly fine: "... even if someone is totally committed to SL and wants to make an average RL wage from it I'd think that's not too outrageous an expectation...".

But I don't believe for one single second that well known content creators make minimum wage and it's all the pretending and trying to provoke sympathy by saying they're all dirt poor that's my personal pet peeve.

There's plenty of income to go after content theft without having to sit and whine "but that costs money and we don't have any" and use that to rally to even further restrict what consumers can do with things they *paid* for.

Kitty, Chip's absolutely right on this. Time is time, and money is money. RL expenses don't change just because a given work project might be destined for SL as opposed to any other environment or platform. For those who are SL hobbyists, by all means, work for micropayments all day long if it makes you happy. But as a professional digital artist, I don't have that option. I need to pay the rent, feed my family, and pay my bills, just like everyone else. What may be just a fun side activity for some is a real job for me, and I get paid what I'm worth.

Does that mean everyone in SL can afford me? Of course not. Most people can't afford to hire a professional artist for RL work either. When most people want a painting to hang on their living room wall in RL, they don't go out and hire a painter to do a custom mural for tens of thousands of dollars. They go to their local Pier One or something, and they spend $50-200 for some mass-produced off-the-shelf piece (or they go to Walmart and spend $5 on a poster). But for those who are willing to pay us what we're worth, that's what we're here for.

By the same token, if someone in SL wants to spend just a couple of bucks, they can go to the hobbyists and to the prefab stores all day long. More power to 'em. That's perfectly fine. But if they want what they can only get from me, they have to pay me what I'm worth. My clientele ranges from TV networks & movie studios to government agencies to retailers to universities to marketing firms. I rarely have individuals as clients, but sometimes I do.

I have no idea what you do for a living, Kitty, but I'm sure whatever it is, you wouldn't be about to take a 99% pay cut just because someone on a forum somewhere doesn't understand what you do or why it's worth the amount you're regularly paid. So kindly don't suggest that we should.

And what percentage of SL content creators are well known and making a lot of money? Are you suggesting that once someone reaches a certain level of success they should cut their prices to make sure they don't accidentally earn more than you think they deserve?

I'm not really sure what a "decent" wage is, frankly. I am not a professional graphic artist, just a retiree who is having a wonderful time reinventing herself in Second Life. I'm one of those who have a fair talent for design, love building and creating clothing, but am not concerned about making a lot of cash doing it. I DO need to pay the rent on my shop, and I enjoy having enough leftover L$ to buy lovely things.

I know a handful of professional graphic designers, though, and I have great respect for the skill they bring to virtual worlds. Many of them have invested heavily in the tools of their trade -- software and hardware -- and have taken courses to learn the finer points. This isn't a hobby. It's how they earn a living. The line between RL and SL has a very different meaning for them than it does for me, and so does their definition of a "decent" wage.

I am conflicted -- speaking now as a consumer, rather than as a small-time designer and shop owner -- when I go out shopping for those lovely things that I buy with my leftover L$. On the one hand, I appreciate the time and professionalism that is behind the very high-priced hair, skins, and clothes that I salivate over. I understand why they cost so much, and I don't begrudge the fact that the designers are trying to earn a decent RL wage. (Really, I don't!) On the other hand, I'm shopping in SL. A L$600 dress feels REALLY expensive in the local economy where I earn my L$, even if it only costs as much as a cup of coffee in RL.

It IS fair to make wage comparisons between SL and RL. We live in both worlds, and at least some people have a career that depends on succeeding financially in both. Market forces in SL and RL put limits on what a graphic artist can expect to earn, but I can hardly blame professionals for wanting to push the limits if they can ... so long as they can do it legally and ethically. It's painful to say .... but if the result is that I will NEVER be able to afford a super-sweet top of the line skin, I guess I can live with that. I can't afford a Ferrari in RL either.

BTW.... Please, I am NOT trying to make any comment or judgment about the legal and ethical issues that are driving this thread. I'm just rambling on about "decent" wages.

Nothing is ever this clear-cut. Yes, IF someone recopied digital works or remixed them without clear permissions, WITH the intent of reselling them to the public at large I see how that's a violation.

Far less clear is any copying that can be argued to be a back-up, or a modification meant to optimize the experience of the person who already purchased a copy of all the IP items in question. If this were a violation, then I would be violating copyright everytime I use WinAmp to rebalance dB levels on MP3s I've made from CDs and LPs that I've owned for years, purchased at full SRP.

I only came back to recheck this thread because I happened across a legal opinion mentioned on Vanna White's wiki page. If interested, look at the view of Judge Koszinski mentioned under litigation there. Admittedly, his was the minority opinion, but I think he makes an important point. One of many reasons I've all but stopped making content in SL is that I can't afford the risk of (what I'd consider) frivolous lawsuits.

Quoting Judge Kosinski (and hoping it's not a copyright violation), "Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Creativity is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture"

Therefore, I just don't make anything anymore, at least not in SL, except as an occasional one-off gag gift for a friend, even though everything I have made I believe in good faith was my own work and not derivative of anyone else's, unless that extends to using, for instance, your own clothing templates on rare occassions. Something I'm going to be sure to stop doing from now on.

Quote copied from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanna_White

(Quoting that particular bit just as a starting point, the post isn't actually aimed at you but rather just the general case for my point since I'm saying A and you and Chip are hearing B (which is noone's fault btw )

Someone earning $200/hour or $30,000/month is not like "everyone else" and it's the pretending that it's the same thing that just plain peeves me.

As far as I'm concerned anyone who can pay their rent, pay for food and has a certain amount of disposable income to spend is "decently well off". Anything beyond that isn't wrong or bad, but neither is it "bad off".

There are two standards: the first is how much you're making for the type of work you do (that can be contrasted against the standard), the second is how much you make period (which is contrasted against the national average and/or minimum wage).

(Entirely hypothetical) If someone wants to argue that they're grossly underpaid on SL than they should be earning given the kind of work they do (say $25/hour instead of the $200), I'll agree. If they want to argue that they're making a sub-standard wage, I'll disagree.

And I'm just not going to drag this out any further because it noone figured out what I'm actually peeved about rather than what you think I'm peeved about, it likely just won't happen .

Kitty, when people rail against copyright law it's like suddenly giant corporations and rich people are the only people who the laws exist to protect, but that's foolish because the vast majority of people those laws protect are the little guys. Should someone who crosses your arbitrary threshold of what's an acceptable income lose the protection of the law because you feel they're no longer someone you can relate to? And who are you to decide who's a little guy and who's a big guy based solely on what you imagine to be true since you have no way to know what anyone's financial well-being is. I can only guess that you've never been self employed and been solely responsible to somehow come up with enough money to pay your bills every month. Because I work in a field where I can get $200/hr for my time you assume that I'm wealthy. Well that'd be great if it were true, but as I said earlier I get paid on average 4 times a year. Some years are good, and some years I spend most months fending off creditors and hoping I still have a home come new year. Don't preach to me, and don't take it upon yourself to imagine based on nothing but your own prejudice what "class" you think someone is in. It's incredibly obnoxious.

You make a good point. Certainly in my experience, the only SL projects I've done that I can clearly consider profitable were those done for individual clients, more or less as hourly piece-work.

I'm not sure this model really works practically, though, for wearable, non-scripted items aimed at a larger market. The trouble I see is that, while I would love to find a partner who wants me just to generate new designs for them, pay me a fair up-front fee and so on, I'm not sure how they in turn can protect themselves from market forces and the general temptation to look for the best deal, a deal that may frequently exist due to unfair copying.

But then again, I'm terrible when it comes to networking and self-promotion too.

These are all valid points Namssor, and whilst not actually diagreeing with them, I'd like to make some comment.

1. Yes, i fully agree with this point, except in as much as the rights aren't being distributed to another party, but to a party that has already bought the item in question. I know that this is technically in breach of US Copyright Law, but this is an area where the law is really rather stupid. Still, the law is the law....

2. Reuploading the textures and creating a replica skin does mean that I was shown as the creator. However, a skin is not like a chair or a house or an actual object in SL. You can't right click a skin and see who made it through the edit window. The only person who would ever see this information in a NT item would be the owner, and they are aware that it is a replica of the (usually excellent) work on which it is based, and which is also still sitting in their inventory.

3. Human error is always possible. We are (most of us) human. I had considered this and always made sure, before passing a skin to a customer, that I checked the permissions were correct. I even did this when I made multiple skins for a customer where each was based on a previous version (usually the same body, different make-up). I made this almost a ritual of the process...NEVER hand over a skin without checking the perms first. However, the possibility for human error does exist, though, as you say, almost anyone receiving such a skin would in all likelihood be honest and not make any use of it other than personal.

There clearly is a need and a demand for this type of service, either provided through LL doing something positive to improve the way avatars work (maybe in line with the JIRA quoted above), or through skin and layer makers coming together somehow to work out a good solution (although I acknowledge that this is even less likely than LL getting their finger out.) Almost every skin I produced was met with cries of utter glee and profusions of thanks from the customer. People really want this! Come on LL...sort something out.

It blows my mind too, and yes, it's insulting. But has it ever been otherwise? It's the very rare artist who has ever managed to clear living expenses from their art. And individuals are always looking for a "better deal" while ignoring the upstream costs of that $5.87 WalMart shirt or DVD.

If you want to enjoy the protection of the law you sue people and if you were in your right and the other in the wrong it'll come out that way.

Making up arbitrary rules, lobbying LL to restrict this or that, or condemning what someone can and can not do with content they paid for just because 1-in-a-1000 might not be honest just punishes the 999 who are honest and accomplishes nothing to actually stop content theft.

(And that isn't aimed at you specifically, but the *only* time I ever see content creators shout about rights it's to avoid having to actually take any action - Stroker aside - and instead propose the most ridiculous restrictions that have no effect on anyone but their own customers)

And I already said I wouldn't continue the other point since if I didn't get across by now, it just won't and we'd just shout past the other .

I think that's actually going both ways. We may actually be having two entirely separate conversations. You might be saying A and we're hearing B, but I think we've been saying C and you've been hearing D. Let me try to resond to your individual points.


I think you missed one critical point. Nobody in this business is earning $30,000 a month every month. You might earn that for one or two months at a stretch (or less), and then you can go the next few months with hardly anything at all.

Myself, I try to avoid putting too many eggs in one basket. I don't want just a handful of big ticket projects. I'll take one if it falls in my lap, sure, but my bread & butter is four figure contracts. Every so often, I land a five figure one, but mostly what I do bills in the mid thousands.

When you've got six months income hanging on one project, it's a big risk. Even if you do everything right, circumstances are not always under your control. If a $5,000 client stiffs you, it hurts but you'll survive. But if a $50,000 one does it, you may well be sunk.


No argument there.


Sure, but one doesn't necessarily follow the other. If being a self employed artist were an automatic vehicle to wealth and riches, everyone would do it. The fact is, though, it's absolutely not. As Chip said, you never know when or from where your next check is coming.

If I were to work every single billable hour in the year, I'd make five or six times what I do. But that's just not realistic. It takes work to get work in this field. Clontracts don't grow on trees, and there's a lot of competition. I make a comfortable living these days, but I'm certainly not getting rich.


Fair enough.


I think I get you, but I have no way of knowing for certain.