New Copyright Threat Warning
|
Azadine Umarov
Registered User
Join date: 7 Apr 2007
Posts: 31
|
09-23-2008 12:51
From: Kitty Barnett 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. This is an alarmingly naive view of how the law works in practice. No personal insult intended, but being in the right is only slightly relevant to how a court case will come out in the end. And I really should stop reading this thread now, as I am already WAY too depressed.
|
Lear Cale
wordy bugger
Join date: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 3,569
|
09-23-2008 13:27
From: Tali Rosca I principally side with the European interpretation, finding that the DMCA tramples consumer rights in this case, but as Enkidu puts it, we cannot pick and choose which laws we want to follow... I agree, except, we can pick and choose the laws we follow. According to Thoreau, we *should* pick and choose them. We just can't pick and choose the consequences.  But WHY are we even talking about "decent wage" here? A creator has every right to charge any price he or she wants to charge. As consumers, we have the right to buy it or not. Arguing over whether someone makes too much or not enough is just plain silly. I agree with Kitty, though, that not most but many content creators react obsurdly over anything that seems to threaten the sanctity of their precious creations even after they've been sold. (NOTE WELL: I do not include Chip or Chosen in this group!) A silly sense of entitlement that, since they created it, they should have complete control over every aspect of its use and distribution. Well, again, it's a free market. If they choose to put all their requirements clearly elucidated in a EULA and require purchasers to read and sign it before purchase, they have every right to do so. But more often they claim unrealistic rights based on their expectations -- sometimes their whims. I don't see too much of that in this thread, fortunately. But I think this is the kind of thing Kitty is reacting to, more from her experience of previous threads on this type of subject than in this one in particular.
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
09-23-2008 13:31
From: Kitty Barnett 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. Um, dunno if you've noticed, but the only thing people are lobbying LL for is a system that's *more* permissive, not less. People shouldn't have to break the law just to have the flexibility they want with a product they bought. No one is arguing otherwise. My position is that just because the system provided isn't as flexible as it should be, that doesn't negate the law (which is designed to protect everyone who makes creative works, not just rich people and Disney). There's nothing arbitrary about the law or why it exists. The real world market contains millions upon millions of potential customers. Piracy is huge, but the market is also huge. Here in the small fishbowl that is SL, the damage is much worse, even if the percentages are the same. A ten percent loss out of millions of dollars can be absorbed by a big corporation. A ten percent loss to someone in SL can easily be the difference between being able to cover expenses or not. When it comes to arguments about copyright, people constantly want to compare content creators in SL with Warner Brothers or Disney or Britney Spears (FFS!) and it makes for an argument that may be sound as an abstraction of principle, but that doesn't hold up in the face of the reality of SL as a marketplace. Take a look at the content theft thread in RA concerning the "away newbie male" sculpture. In a span of just a few weeks that product went from being a brand new creation to being stolen, stripped of it's permissions, and now is absolutely everywhere as a freebie that the vast majority of people have no idea was stolen. The potential market for that product has been completely eviscerated. That's the reality of SL, and it's bloody sad that people have such an overdeveloped sense of entitlement over something they spent $4 for that they just don't care. They'll break the law, and they'll justify their actions by painting their own peers as greedy overprotective corporations out to rape the consumer. The most ironic thing about that is that by forcing people trying to make a living into having to turn to contract work to do it they help usher in a future when big faceless corporations will be the only ones putting out professional quality stuff for the masses because they'll be the only ones who can absorb the losses.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Kitty Barnett
Registered User
Join date: 10 May 2006
Posts: 5,586
|
09-23-2008 15:05
From: Chosen Few 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. It works both ways, yesh  . From: Chip Midnight Um, dunno if you've noticed, but the only thing people are lobbying LL for is a system that's *more* permissive, not less. * removal of "UUID grabbing" (useful and entirely harmless if you use it to fix accidentally dropping a texture on a wall) * "no mod" used for "copy protection" (pointless, just annoys people who buy it) * cross-grid permissions ("someone might use it to steal content so we can't allow this"  * "if content is stolen it must be purged from the asset server to punish the thieves!" (punishes content creators and consumers alike who never knew it was stolen; doesn't affect thieves at all, they already cashed out) * inventory backup ("zomg! theft tool!"  * "you can't have this NC/T because if you'd ever resell it you'd be stealing from me" (oooooook...) etc, etc It's hard to even argue for any kind of "I want/think I should be able to do (fill in blank) with content I bought" no matter how innocent without instantly having the insinuation that you must be a "thief" thrown around (not referring to this thread, but more in general). I honestly don't see any move towards a more permissive system coming from content creators, only knee-jerk heated responses to content theft instances where they completely miss the ball and want to restrict/punish consumers rather than deal with the actual thief/infringer. From: someone People shouldn't have to break the law just to have the flexibility they want with a product they bought. No one is arguing otherwise. There is quite a bit of disagreement on what is reasonable flexibility though  . My guess would be that most creators want flexibility up to the point where it doesn't introduce any new (or significant) risk(s) while I personally would want flexibility with only minimal concern as to what risks it might introduce. If someone wants to use the flexibility to step over the line then that's their problem, it shouldn't affect someone who isn't interesting in abusing it. It's always going to inevitably lead to some kind of compromise and in my opinion the current system is far more restrictive than it is permissive. From: someone Take a look at the content theft thread in RA concerning the "away newbie male" sculpture. In a span of just a few weeks that product went from being a brand new creation to being stolen, stripped of it's permissions, and now is absolutely everywhere as a freebie that the vast majority of people have no idea was stolen. Given the impression that it's based on SL's hair/skin/clothing textures I'm still not convinced the original isn't an infringement in itself, but I get your point  . I don't think anyone ever argues that content theft doesn't hurt the creator (also hurts the people who bought it legitimately for that matter by devaluing what they paid for), but in my opinion it should be the infringer who "pays for their crime", not people who didn't know any better and who couldn't have know (in this particular instance I don't think there was any awareness at all except for an allegation burried deep in a post on SLU about the decision to charge for Greenies/Black Swan). In this case it's a freebie so noone really paid for it, but - luckily really since it reduces the spread - the general case is that people end up paying for stolen content and things like removing it from everyone's inventory are entirely the wrong approach in my view. Targetting the consumers while leaving the thief alone to enjoy their ill-gotten earnings is a major pet-peeve for me (along with raising pitchforks over things that might be strictly speaking be infringement but are all in all rather harmless and innocent like the skin+tattoo topic of this thread).
|
Rudee Voom
i log on, therefore i am
Join date: 5 Jun 2007
Posts: 26
|
09-23-2008 16:48
From: Kitty Barnett (along with raising pitchforks over things that might be strictly speaking be infringement but are all in all rather harmless and innocent like the skin+tattoo topic of this thread). Take a gun into a bakery because you just want one loaf of bread and there's no "real" harm. Gross exaggeration I know - but to make a point. We all accept and are trying to make concessions for what everybody is arguing are the "harmless" or "legitimate" uses, but make guns readily available for all the hungry or starving because they have a right to eat? Hell yes they have a right to eat, but there's gotta be a more sensible solution. We just can't pick and choose where a potentially harmful method is alright to apply and where it isn't then glibly wash our hands of it and say I did nothing wrong, and they "probably" won't, so its OK. Saying that if someone crosses the line then its their look-out, but most people aren't going to is like saying lets put buckets of guns out on the street because there are justified uses for them, and if someone misuse one, well that's their problem. Sure, most people are never even going to pick one up... Its that "most" where the trouble lies and what we're trying to address. If a surgeon said to you he knows most of what he needs to to successfully operate on you, its not the part he knows that's the trouble, and we still might wanna reconsider his license. Most people are gonna use this responsibly. That's all well and good but you have to accept that it also justifies and makes possible the other uses. I could just as easily have offered the service using this same technology myself - baking my tattoos onto my customers existing skins - had all the good intentions in the world, destroyed anything that I might not have rights to, etc. It would be a very popular service and I'd be making a ton more than I am, but I simply can't justify the method for my own gain, no matter how honest, because it condones by its mere acceptance all of the less than harmless uses. If I did use it, how would I be justified in saying anything if it was used against me and did harm? How do I tell someone else not to use it?
|
Azadine Umarov
Registered User
Join date: 7 Apr 2007
Posts: 31
|
09-23-2008 19:27
From: Rudee Voom I could just as easily have offered the service using this same technology myself - baking my tattoos onto my customers existing skins - had all the good intentions in the world, destroyed anything that I might not have rights to, etc. It would be a very popular service and I'd be making a ton more than I am, but I simply can't justify the method for my own gain, no matter how honest, because it condones by its mere acceptance all of the less than harmless uses. If I did use it, how would I be justified in saying anything if it was used against me and did harm? How do I tell someone else not to use it? By this logic we should all be throwing our computers in the bay, I suppose. After all, it's the nature of digital assets that they must be readily copyable in order to work with any degree of consistency. If you really don't want to condone "lawless copying" by all means place a moratorium on computers and standard digital formats for graphics, audio, video and the rest of it. Fine by me that you choose not to do something you theoretically can do, but last I checked, the clearcut illegal acts were those that involved someone profiting from copying by doing it on a massive scale. Act as you see fit, just don't expect everyone to agree with you. With concurrencies now still no higher than 70K users on the main grid, SL doesn't even begin to meet my test of what amounts to a mass market in the first place. If SL ever became scalable, these concerns would quickly come to be seen as naive and quaint relics of an era of handicrafts and other sorts of buggy whip makers.
|
Rudee Voom
i log on, therefore i am
Join date: 5 Jun 2007
Posts: 26
|
09-23-2008 23:21
From: Azadine Umarov With concurrencies now still no higher than 70K users on the main grid, SL doesn't even begin to meet my test of what amounts to a mass market in the first place. If SL ever became scalable, these concerns would quickly come to be seen as naive and quaint relics of an era of handicrafts and other sorts of buggy whip makers.
You're kidding, right? Selling one item at about L$400 (about $1.50 US) to 70,000 would net you $105,000 US, and that ain't small claims. Any major corporation would take you to court over that.
|
Baloo Uriza
Debian Linux Helper
Join date: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 895
|
09-23-2008 23:28
From: Azadine Umarov 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. This is the point I was definitely trying to convey. From: someone 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. I am not trying to suggest that it is entirely practical; though given the number of people saying that the traditional model isn't even cutting cost in a lot of cases, I'm not sure the traditional model is any more practical in this case: Just more obvious. From: someone But then again, I'm terrible when it comes to networking and self-promotion too. So far, when I've found something I like, I check who the owner is and I IM them with my request. Word-of-"Inspect" if you will.
|
Kiran Inglewood
Sheesh!
Join date: 21 Sep 2008
Posts: 16
|
A Further Slant on this Issue
09-25-2008 06:26
This thread has been a very interesting read. I'd like to offer a further slant.
Having read through, especially Chip's contributions, something has occurred to me.
When LL set up the system, they designed the avatar so that you could have a shape of your choice. Overlaid on this was a skin that you could edit using the sliders. On top of this was a further layer on which make-up and tattoos could be placed. Then came the clothing layers. LL's intention for the tattoo layer was clearly that content creators could create and sell textures thaat would overlay the skin and provide tattoos and make-up
At some point Chip had a stroke of genius and realised that the tattoo layer could be used to create more realistic skins, and having introduced this, it became a new paradigm. However, by usurping the tattoo layer for skins, this new approach restricts both the user's right to place tattoo textures on this layer, and the tattoo and make-up creators right to build and sell textures for this layer. Chip himself says that he sometimes regrets having killed off the make-up market. Chip and those that follow him have acquired a significant commercial benefit from thus restricting everyone else's right to use the layers as the system designers intended.
Furthermore, tattoo creators, by meekly accepting this change, have also restricted user's rights to utilise the clothing layers for what they were originally intended. In fact, their tattoos, as sold, are not "fit for purpose", as the designed purpose is to overlay the skin on the tattoo layer.
Many in this thread have suggested that the original purpose could be resurrected by skin and tattoo creators selling textures that overlay the original skin, but this has been rejected as open to abuse. It was, however the intention of the system designers when they created the system, and as such, signed up to by the creators when they joined and agreed to the TOS. In actuality, these content creators are quite happy to override the system purpose and the rights of users in order to maintain their restrictive commercial advantages and practices.
Now it seems to me that what Enkidu is doing is actually returning to users the right to place their tattoos on the tattoo layer which LL designed for that purpose. He is actually more in compliance with the letter and spirit of the TOS than those who have overridden the system for their own gain. Skin makers say that they have lobbied LL for a change in the avatar architecture to deal with the deficiencies in the system, but in actuality, the system wasn't defective to start with. It only became so when they decided to use and block the layers for purposes that earn them money but restrict everyone else from using the system as designed.
When you join SL, you accept the TOS and agree to use the system as it is presented by LL. Part of this is the provision of textures for people to use on the tattoo layer, and as such a tacit agreement that people can use these for this purpose. Maintaining esoteric copyright rights is to me a corruption and abuse of this system and a restrictive practice.
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
09-25-2008 07:33
Interesting theory, Kiran. I agree, in part, but I think you're missing some important pieces of the puzzle underlying the original design of the system and SL's evolution. First and foremost, LL has always been making SL up as they go along, and many (if not most) of SL's major paradigm shifts have come as a result of innovations originating from SL residents that weren't anticipated by LL, but that LL has been happy to adopt and restructure around. The biggest of these is the economy. SL has always had an economy, but originally it was geared more as a kind of game score, and a means of controlling the amount of assets and land any one person could control. Land and rezzed prims were assessed a weekly tax, and that tax was offset by stipends paid by SL with an amount that varied according to resident's ratings in several categories. The system didn't work very well. Ratings were gamed to the point of being meaningless (you had socialites at the top of the best builders category who could barely rez a plywood box), and there were no limits on how many prims a parcel of land could have. The limit was sim wide, so a very successful person in a sim who could pay high taxes could use up a disproportionate amount of sim resources. I started making clothing and skins as a way to make money to pay my prim taxes (which were around 10k a week). Back then there was no way to cash out L$ for real money. Also back then, there was no permission system at all. The user base was small, business wasn't a priority, and piracy wasn't an issue. We all pretty much knew each other. Then Gaming Open Market (GOM) came into being, which was the first resident created currency exchange. Suddenly people who had built up successful businesses in order to feed their prim habits started making a lot of real money. The proverbial lightbulb went on over LL's head. They ditched the old tax and ratings system and introduced tier and prim allowances based on the amount of land owned in a sim. They opened the LindeX. They introduced resident IP rights. And they gave us the permissions system. The entire dynamic changed. The real economy was born, and the press took notice. SL began its meteoric rise from niche curiosity to mainstream noteriety. I bring all that up because it illustrates something important about SL and LL - they've never really been the ones steering the ship - residents have been - and the major sea changes in the way SL is structured have largely been in reaction to the changes residents have wrought and not the other way around. That's due to two main factors: First, LL shouldn't quit its day job and go into the business of prognostication, because they've always been taken by surprise, and second, LL has always been ridiculously idealistic. IP rights and the real economy were an afterthought, but without them SL would still be a niche product that no one knows about (if it even still existed, which is doubtful). We can't go back to LL's original idealistic design, and they wouldn't want to if they could. SL's success is because of IP rights and for profit business on the grid, not in spite of it. The way the avatar system works has never been changed. It's an anachronistic holdover from SL's adolescent innocence. It desperately needs to change to reflect what SL is now.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Tali Rosca
Plywood Whisperer
Join date: 6 Feb 2007
Posts: 767
|
09-25-2008 07:49
Also, far simpler, it's not like skin makers actually prevent you from using the tattoo layer "as intended" for tattoos. They simply give you the *additional* choice of using it for full-body skins instead. It has then become the defacto standard, but that's an aesthetic choice by residents.
(Edited just to point out that as per my earlier post, I am still in favor of allowing the skin/tattoo merging as a consumer right).
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
09-25-2008 07:53
Very true! The default skins are still there for anyone who wants to use them who doesn't want to give up their tattoo slots.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Kiran Inglewood
Sheesh!
Join date: 21 Sep 2008
Posts: 16
|
09-25-2008 09:14
From: Chip Midnight Very true! The default skins are still there for anyone who wants to use them who doesn't want to give up their tattoo slots. True, but I think the point is that as all the layers have been shifted up one, then no tattoo seller sells his tattoos as textures anymore, but as clothing layers. Thus, whilst it is still technically possible to use the tattoo layer, in practice it is restricted.
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
09-25-2008 09:22
From: Kiran Inglewood True, but I think the point is that as all the layers have been shifted up one, then no tattoo seller sells his tattoos as textures anymore, but as clothing layers. Thus, whilst it is still technically possible to use the tattoo layer, in practice it is restricted. Yes, it is restricted in practice, but even if it wasn't would any tattoo seller want to distribute their wares as raw textures now anyway? I doubt it. We know what the inevitable result of that would be.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Lear Cale
wordy bugger
Join date: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 3,569
|
09-25-2008 09:25
Kiran raises an interesting point of view but I think Chip's history puts it in perspective. Kiran makes the valid point that LL clearly intended to provide the ability for users to be able to apply tattoos. While I don't think we can quite call skins "restricting the rights" of users, since custom skins are a voluntary choice, the method used by skin makers does thwart the original intent.
So, skin makers can't make a good case that it shouldn't be possible to provide a flexible tattoo system -- and I don't think they try to make that case. They object to the method here, not the resulting avatar appearance. I disagree with some of their objections to the method (not wanting their artwork modified), and agree with others (the potential for the permissions system to be thwarted).
However, Kiran says that Enkidu's service complies with the ToS. But it pretty clearly violates DMCA, which is explicit in the ToS. So, while I agree in spirit that the service is a valid and valuable one, and that skin makers shouldn't be able to complain about it on that level, it does violate the letter of the law and the ToS.
The fact that someone has to do something illegal to provide a reasonable and legitimate feature -- one originally intended by LL -- indicates that there's something wrong with the system.
Vote for the JIRA entries for more tattoo layers! If they do that this discussion becomes irrelevant.
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
09-25-2008 09:33
From: Lear Cale Vote for the JIRA entries for more tattoo layers! If they do that this discussion becomes irrelevant. Indeed! In addition to voting for the JIRA, whenever you interact with a Linden, ANY Linden, poke them with a pointy stick while complaining about how badly we need it done and done soon.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
09-25-2008 09:36
From: Lear Cale While I don't think we can quite call skins "restricting the rights" of users, since custom skins are a voluntary choice, the method used by skin makers does thwart the original intent. Namssor could add some interesting perspective about this, having attempted to market a skin that didn't use the tattoo slots but instead replaced files in the character folder. I bet you can guess how that went.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Seshat Czeret
Registered User
Join date: 26 May 2008
Posts: 152
|
09-25-2008 11:14
From: Kitty Barnett Someone earning $200/hour or $30,000/month Very very few freelancers or contractors who earn $200/hour gross earn $30,000/month gross. It's very hard to get 40-hours a week of work as a contractor or freelancer in any field, much less the arts. As for the gross vs net income: a freelancer or contractor provides their own materials (not relevant in SL), equipment (relevant) and workspace (relevant). They are responsible for their own health insurance (if in the US), have no worker's compensation if they're injured on the job, have no sick pay or holiday pay, no employer or state-assisted retirement plan, and have no protections against unfair dismissal. To calculate the wage or salary equivalent of a freelancer's or contractor's income is actually a fairly tricky calculation; and is part of the reason for complicated tax forms. My Dad was a contractor for most of my life: though he was a contractor who should have been a salaried employee; it was just the employer & the industry using the contract/freelance system to avoid having to give employees their proper benefits.  Funny how this is a hot button issue for me.
_____________________
My blog: http://seshat-czeret.blogspot.com/ My shop: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Achlya/199/185/102
|
Kiran Inglewood
Sheesh!
Join date: 21 Sep 2008
Posts: 16
|
09-25-2008 13:46
From: Lear Cale So, skin makers can't make a good case that it shouldn't be possible to provide a flexible tattoo system -- and I don't think they try to make that case. They object to the method here, not the resulting avatar appearance. I disagree with some of their objections to the method (not wanting their artwork modified), and agree with others (the potential for the permissions system to be thwarted). I guess the issue of permissions isn't totally clear cut either. Most skin makers provide their skins as Copy but No Transfer. This explicitly gives the user the right to copy the skin. I can't see how having someone else carry out the actual copying for you contravenes the permissions system. My understanding is that at no point does the user actual transfer the skin. they retain ownership of it. Transfer implies giving the actual item to another avatar, so as far as I can see, the perms system isn't contravened. The issue of whether using GLIntercept to grab the textures is a violation is a separate issue regarding the TOS.
|
Namssor Daguerre
Imitates life
Join date: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
|
09-25-2008 14:06
From: Chip Midnight Namssor could add some interesting perspective about this, having attempted to market a skin that didn't use the tattoo slots but instead replaced files in the character folder. I bet you can guess how that went. I marketed my skins this way well before any of the issues surrounding texture interception were widely known, and well before I made my techniques for overwriting the color layers in the character folder known to the general public. It was a very successful business venture at the time. Now that everyone knows the tricks of the trade, so to speak, it's a great preview method for skin designers that is now part of a bygone era of skin design. It's an unrealistic unmarketable business model now that 95% of all accounts fill the tattoo slots with skin textured assets. Skins evolved out of the need to improve the ugly default skin features. Traditional tattoo artists found themselves either having to design their own skins, or appropriate one or more of the clothing layers to sell their product separate from a skin. We are at the point we are because nothing has changed since day one. We have an ugly clunky default skin system and an almost unanimous call for change that has gone unanswered for half a decade. Unfortunately, I think Linden Lab has completely missed the opportunity to effectively make a positive change with the avatar (unless it is SL 2.0 with brand new UV's etc.). I think it's now up to the designers of the next generation computing platforms (cloud based computing) to usher in the next change. LL will either adapt or SL as we know it will become extinct.
|
Lear Cale
wordy bugger
Join date: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 3,569
|
09-25-2008 21:01
From: Kiran Inglewood I guess the issue of permissions isn't totally clear cut either. Most skin makers provide their skins as Copy but No Transfer. This explicitly gives the user the right to copy the skin. I can't see how having someone else carry out the actual copying for you contravenes the permissions system. My understanding is that at no point does the user actual transfer the skin. they retain ownership of it. Transfer implies giving the actual item to another avatar, so as far as I can see, the perms system isn't contravened. The issue of whether using GLIntercept to grab the textures is a violation is a separate issue regarding the TOS. Agreed that using the lib is a TOS violation. That is exactly what thwarts the intent of the permissions system, because the service provider obtains a full-perm copy of the skin. The real issue is that the service provider has no way to tell whether the customer has copy privilige on the skin. Furthermore, if the tattos (or oils) are xfer-only (as mentioned by Nyoko above), this service model allows someone to use one set of xfer/no-copy oils for any number of avatars. That's two specific cases of thwarting the permissions system (and it's precisely why Enkidu honorably withdrew the offer for service). I wouldn't be too surprised to find there are more, even if the service provider acts with as much integrity as possible. I've had to revise my opinion on the practice as a result of these cases. I'd previously defended it: not as legal because it violates the TOS. But as defensible, and even ethical. However, I have to retreat from that because in certain cases customers can take unfair advantage of it, and the service provider can't detect those cases (at least, not any way I can think of).
|
Gordon Wendt
404 - User not found
Join date: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1,024
|
09-25-2008 21:46
From: Lear Cale Agreed that using the lib is a TOS violation. That is exactly what thwarts the intent of the permissions system, because the service provider obtains a full-perm copy of the skin.
Wrong, using GlIntercept or like tools isn't a TOS violation or a DMCA violation or a violation of any other law in any country that I know (except maybe that draconian laws in Germany against such tools). Using it on assets (read: textures) you don't have the permissions to copy IS illegal in most localities that readers of this forum are forum are. That is a very big distinction and one that I think one that 99% of people miss. It's not the tools that's bad it's the people who use the tool to use for bad things. From: Lear Cale The real issue is that the service provider has no way to tell whether the customer has copy privilige on the skin. Furthermore, if the tattos (or oils) are xfer-only (as mentioned by Nyoko above), this service model allows someone to use one set of xfer/no-copy oils for any number of avatars. That's two specific cases of thwarting the permissions system (and it's precisely why Enkidu honorably withdrew the offer for service). I wouldn't be too surprised to find there are more, even if the service provider acts with as much integrity as possible.
I've had to revise my opinion on the practice as a result of these cases. I'd previously defended it: not as legal because it violates the TOS. But as defensible, and even ethical. However, I have to retreat from that because in certain cases customers can take unfair advantage of it, and the service provider can't detect those cases (at least, not any way I can think of).
This is why LL needs to act by adding extra layers or other means within the existing system to allow for tattoos and makeup. If they made it part of the system especially an open and flexible part of it, albeit one that still lets rightsholders keep their rights, then there would be no need for questionable services. The two big steps for this I think have already been mentioned and they are extra layers above the skin but below clothing and a much larger range of permissions so that content creators can be more granular with the permissions on their works.
_____________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/GWendt Plurk: http://www.plurk.com/GordonWendt GW Designs: XStreetSL
|
Lear Cale
wordy bugger
Join date: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 3,569
|
09-26-2008 06:49
From: Gordon Wendt Wrong, using GlIntercept or like tools isn't a TOS violation or a DMCA violation or a violation of any other law in any country that I know (except maybe that draconian laws in Germany against such tools). Using it on assets (read: textures) you don't have the permissions to copy IS illegal in most localities that readers of this forum are forum are. Agreed, but that's exactly what we're talking about here. The "using it on assets you don't have permission to copy" is pretty much implicit, since you generally don't need GLI on textures you *do* have copy permissions on. And note that in this case the person using GLI isn't the one who has these copy permissions. In the case where it's used to bake a copiable tattoo onto a copiable skin, IMHO it's technically a violation, but in ethical terms I have no problem with it. DCMA is a bit draconian, and I personally don't follow it to the letter. Yes, I'm willing to actually hold down the shift key when inserting some CDs into my computer, and (horrors!) even tell people that it can help, which makes me a violator. From: someone This is why LL needs to act by adding extra layers or other means within the existing system to allow for tattoos and makeup. If they made it part of the system especially an open and flexible part of it, albeit one that still lets rightsholders keep their rights, then there would be no need for questionable services. I haven't seen anyone on this thread disagree with that, I'm happy to say.
|
Snakekiss Noir
japanese designer
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 334
|
my brain hurt
10-26-2008 04:11
I struggled thru this entire thread out of interest, SL education and morbid curiosity.
Having digested all the arguments, I noted legal texts, personal opinions, insults, common sense, pleadings, lecturing, moral superiority, arrogance, concern, honesty, wisdom, humility, business fundamentals, self pride, boastfulness and greed within the immense number of posts, and examined the core issue from every possible side. I am not sure I am any the wiser. Except to see as ever even in the virtual world it is hard to get more than one human (or virtual creature) to agree with the next, especially where money is concerned. The issue of 'copyright' and 'content' is the next big human battlefield in the digital age as we have seen already in so many media arena.
I did however learn a ton of things about the world of skin makers and making and its history and problems and skills and so am enriched by this awareness and knowledge and understand you all more. I also was confused by a lot of the tech which I have no idea about and don't envy you all having to wade through.
The arguments are vast and show once again how the Brave New World has mostly become a Big New Shop. In between the ordinary consumer, armchair lawyers, moral crusaders, self interest groups, 'artists', business merchants, egotists, students, researchers and just plain 'hoping to get by in the virtual world' inhabitants.. there is, one hopes, a common thread somewhere still to make this pioneering virtual life a 'better place' than our beleagured 1st world existence.
Threads like this are inevitable I think as we struggle for the 'right and wrong' of our pixel existence whilst remorselessly failing to let go of our flawed origins in the currency dependent old world. Someone mentioned a definition of an artist...but since the first days of 2003 I have seen SL change so much that I am no longer sure what an 'artist' is or even if anyone cares anyway - perhaps like Tyrell Corporation 'commerce is our goal'.
MY initial conclusion was that the 'offending' service's creator was providing a really useful personal service for an individual linking together a number of things 'owned' by that individual without any malicious intention, but making a small L$ 'turn' in the process, and like as others said it 'seemed like a good idea'
I was then drawn into the maelstrom above where the 'badness ' of that 'good idea' was meticulously dissected using both 1st world and 2nd world laws, arguments, and business protectionism thinking, a lot of which then made equal sense as the initial impression.
I 'create' a bit of stuff myself but in my little 'low market' niche I have experienced few problems compared to you high profile skin makers and texture or fashion designers. I have been partly responsible for encouraging the growth in japanese/chinese/asian creators through 5 years of free markets and shops and sponsorship of other 'artists' and 'traders' .. thus creating my own competition and lowering my income as a result in theory..ha ha... I did not seek this world to make money or bang a drum about rules... but then I am not a 'granny' so stand to lose not that much in the grand scheme of things, so,,, easy for me to say such glibness, yes.
How often I foolishly wish we could leave 1st world faults behind and create a better virtual life.. this proves harder all the time where commerce is concerned. Many are right in that instead of 'fighting' each other and stifling often rampant creativity we ought to be more unified in 'attacking' the deficiencies of our new world with the 'Gods' of Creation ( Linden Lab) themselves and pushing forward the envelope through player unity on issues that should have been improved years ago. After all WE all pay THEM millions of dollars to exist in this world and are forced to squable amongst ourselves as to what is acceptable or not to address its deficiencies.
Finally in the end, having read it all, and what a lot there is of it, I ended up with the opinion that the 'criminal' turned out to be the most balanced, polite and reasonable person in the entire chain of events! I was impressed in his 'reconsideration' of his well meant endeavours, (though disappointed in some of what I saw exposed in others along the way as he was driven to this decision).
We ALL yet have a lot to learn, I think.
|
Play Nitely
Registered User
Join date: 19 Oct 2008
Posts: 5
|
10-30-2008 15:28
From: Rudee Voom A resident is offering a service called "Skin Augmentation" where he claims he will combine any skin and tattoo, oil, clothing from any source into one texture, making the tattoo etc. "permanent."
Content creators should be aware of this.
I just confronted him about this service and how he achieves it. He said, among other things...
Q: How does your service work?
A: I replicate your skin with your tattoos or whatever layers you have on embedded on it. Your original skin isn't affected
Q: How do you replicate the skin and tattoo? Where do you get the texture?
A: The mecjanics of the process are a trade secret...but it works...pixel perfect
Q: Do you have any images, before and after kinda stuff, or just pics of your work?
A: i am making some images...but all my work is cash on delivery...if you aren't satisfied, you don't pay
Q: So do I have to supply you with copies or something?
A: no...you just have to come to my workshop...it takes about 5 minutes
Q: do you need to access my files somehow?
A: no
Q: Is this legal? Does it involve copybot or some similar process? How does it affect copyright of the originals?
A: i don't use copybot. The process is legal. I replicate your skin and tatts, that you MUST already have bought. I don't copy and sell skins. The tattooed skin I produce for you is for your personal use only and is non-transferable
Q: not a similar process to copybot?
A: I don't use copybot, so i have no idea A: If you are interested, let me know
Q: Well, I'm very interested. I make tattoos a few doors down from where you just bought land, and I'm confused about how you would approach a customer who came to you with one of my tattoos and someone else's skin files Q: and how you would then use my copyrighted work, then resell it Q: and say its not an infringement on my copyright Q: what about my right to resell my own work on a skin being undercut by your process?
A: I don't resell your copyrighted work. All i do is combine the item that a buyer has bought (your tattoo), with another itrem they have already bought (a skin). I charge for the service. It's like if you buy some CDs, you have the right to make a backup for your personal use, or combine tracks from separate CDs you OWN onto a CD to play in the car. If you sold the copies, that would be a copyright infringement, but for personal use, it is allowed. This is why all the skins I produce are non-transferable A: The point is hat people have to have bought from you to start with
Q: that would only apply if the original owner was the only party involved in the copy making, and even that is iffy Q: transfer of that copyrighted material to a third party to make the copy is in no way covered
Q: Not at all...i could take my hifi round to someone's house and make them a CD...as long as they didn't sell it on, that would be fine
Q: this leaves the third party with copies of the material and no way to make sure they are not using the copies to bootleg and resell under a different name or through another party
A: I also dont retain any of the textures once the skin has been created
Q: how can anyone be sure of that Q: if you're transferring the copyrighted material from one party to another, particularly if you're charging, then you are dealing in stolen material Q: and even if so, you are infringing on my right to sell my product on a skin of my own creation
Q: LL have a record of everything that is kept on the inventory servers. If i was doing that, they would have a record of it and my business wouldn't last very long Q: You still have the right to do that Q: but when you sell something to someone, it gives them certain rights to use it
Q: Well, I assume you will have no problem then if I report this to Linden Labs and give them a copy of this IM?
A: Sure...That's fine
Q: it gives the right to them, not to you
A: indeed...and i just facilitate them doing it...I provide a service A: If you think about it, my service maked the use of tattoos much more flexible, and should encourage people to buy more tattoos
Q: I've been developing skins with tattoos, a lot of hard work and long hours, and really If I think about it, you selling my tattoos and someone elses skin for less than the cost of either of the originals is theft
A: How is it theft? I am not giving people anything that they don't already own and have paid for. A: If i was selling your tatts tom people that didnt already own them, it would be, but i don't do that
You have also committed an offense whereby he did not give you permission to publish your private conversation. Anyhow if he does this sort of work he will probably be seeing alot of skins and will get bored of it all. I doubt he would steal your skins. Skins is SL are all crap anyway over priced and has abosolutely no body detail what so ever. Most skins in SL looked cartoonish. I'd prefer to walk in my noob skin it looked more innocent and lovely women just love me. That goes for girlie men too. 
|