"profesional Skin Ripper For Hire !"
|
|
Lear Cale
wordy bugger
Join date: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 3,569
|
11-11-2007 20:23
From: Flater Baxter lol you totallay don't get the point ... its not about picasso... its about modify an artwork ... creating stuff is art, only the creator has rights to modify it, no-one else thats the law (in most sane country's) No, she totally gets the point. This is legal everywhere. It's only illegal in the US with DIGITAL media, due to a NEW law, DCMA. This was never illegal before. Stupid, maybe -- for a Picasso. But not so stupid for any kind of print you may have. Do you really think the copyright owner of a poster I have should be able to sue me if I paint a mustache on my copy of Farah Fawcette? Sheesh. That's the problem with overbearing laws. People think that these new rights are deep, immutable, moral, ethical positions. Yet in truth, they're novel artifacts of recent legislation that was intended for an entirely different purpose. |
|
Joannah Cramer
Registered User
Join date: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1,539
|
11-11-2007 20:27
From: Dana Hickman This is not entirely true. The asset belongs to LL once you upload it. The creator only owns the copyrights on it. What the creator sees in their inventory after uploading is not the asset, it's a link TO that LL OWNED asset. What the customer purchases (and thus fully owns) is a single copy of that LL asset, with your copyrights attached. Your only say in the matter is who can or can't copy the asset. To be more correct, what the customer purchases (and thus fully owns) is also a link to that LL owned asset. Purchasing the skin or clothing in SL doesn't place a copy of the original (now LL owned) image file(s) in your inventory, does it? |
|
Lear Cale
wordy bugger
Join date: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 3,569
|
11-11-2007 20:33
Note that VARA specifically is NOT applicable to the question here: From: someone Keep in mind that any damage must be to the physical work of art itself, not to a print or other image of it. A good illustration of this distinction between the protection afforded art under VARA and other copyright law is Peker v. Masters Collection, 96 F.Supp.2d 216 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). Here, an artist had licensed a company to produce posters of his work. Masters Collection, a business that specializes in reproductions of art designed to look and feel like a real painting, purchased the posters and, without seeking the artist’s permission, backed the poster on canvas and applied a clear gel to the surface, thereby imitating the sweep of brushstrokes and the impasto of paint. The artist sued Masters Collection under both VARA (for modification) and under copyright law. The court dismissed the VARA claim on the grounds that the modification was to the posters, not to the artist’s “work of fine art,” the original canvas. The court, however, found for the artist on the copyright claim on the grounds of unauthorized reproduction.
|
|
Lear Cale
wordy bugger
Join date: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 3,569
|
11-11-2007 20:37
From: Joannah Cramer To be more correct, what the customer purchases (and thus fully owns) is also a link to that LL owned asset. Purchasing the skin or clothing in SL doesn't place a copy of the original (now LL owned) image file(s) in your inventory, does it? No, that's not quite correct either. When we're talking about digital media, there is no "original" other than perhaps the file on the creator's computer, and there is no "ownership" or "asset" other than the information the copyright covers. These things can be confusing. In the case of an image, LL does not own anything. You retain ownership of the copright of the data. LL does not "own the data". LL "stores the data". LL owns the servers on which the data is stored. Yes, I've read that portion of the TOS, quite carefully. It doesn't quite say what you think. |
|
Joannah Cramer
Registered User
Join date: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1,539
|
11-11-2007 20:44
From: Lear Cale No, that's not quite correct either.
When we're talking about digital media, there is no "original" other than perhaps the file on the creator's computer, and there is no "ownership" or "asset" other than the information the copyright covers. These things can be confusing.
In the case of an image, LL does not own anything. You retain ownership of the copright of the data. LL does not "own the data". LL "stores the data". LL owns the servers on which the data is stored.
Yes, I've read that portion of the TOS, quite carefully. It doesn't quite say what you think. OK, it'd then seem that 'even more correct' version is, "what the customer purchases (and thus fully owns) is also a link to that LL-stored asset."? Is that well, correct?  |
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
11-11-2007 20:56
From: Joannah Cramer To be more correct, what the customer purchases (and thus fully owns) is also a link to that LL owned asset. Purchasing the skin or clothing in SL doesn't place a copy of the original (now LL owned) image file(s) in your inventory, does it? And to add to that, LL doesn't own the assets either. By uploading content to the service, you grant them a perpetual license to use it for marketing and testing, and to release them from any liability if your copyrights end up being violated due to bugs or limitations of their software. Also, when you agree to the TOS, you agree not to access any of the grid's content in any way other than with the SL viewer (or an open source equivelant). Using a texture ripper to mine assets from the service is a TOS violation. There's plenty of valid arguments pro and con as far as fair use goes, but what isn't debatable is that ripping textures and modifying them is a violation of the terms of service, copyright law, and the DMCA. Any justification for doing so is just that... a justification. It doesn't change the law. And even fair use is completely misunderstood by most people... From: someone Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. That's all fair use provides for. That many people feel it should be more permissive is rather beside the point. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106As for destroying an artwork (not that it's particularly relevent to ripping textures from SL), in US copyright law the work has to have recognized stature to fall under that protection.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
|
Jesseaitui Petion
king of polynesia :P
Join date: 2 Jan 2006
Posts: 2,175
|
11-11-2007 20:59
From: Lear Cale
I AM A CONTENT CREATOR. I DISAGREE WITH YOU. STOP ASSUMING YOU SPEAK FOR ALL CONTENT CREATORS.
Oh, quit it. I`m not speaking for everyone. Where did I say "All us content creators vs everyone else"? Nowhere did I say that, I hold my own opinion and am entirely aware there are some content creators that do not mind the ripping and modification of their work, or, doing it to someone elses work for personal use... That is displayed here. I`m aware of it From: someone Do I need to repeat that again? Please do not talk to me like I`m a child. I am not in this thread to argue or get into a fight with anybody here. From: someone Please stop assuming that all content creators are in favor of all aspects of DCMA and draconian intellectual property laws that take rights from consumers and create brand new rights for digital media. What is DCMA?
_____________________
a i t u i // Tattoo & Fashion House
http://slurl.com/secondlife/Aitui/127/128/41
|
|
Void Singer
Int vSelf = Sing(void);
Join date: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,973
|
11-11-2007 21:15
From: Chip Midnight Not to mention that the reassembled skins now list someone other than the actual creator as the creator. This mind you is why I don't like the current system... false attribution, and is more LL's fault than the market, since a service provider is given no way to assert the original creator... a fair workaround would be for the service provider to supply the creator with the modified original, plus a small fee for upload and time, so that the owner may transfer it with proper attribution to the client... in fact I wonder why content providers don't just outsource modification work to a trusted provider, thus keeping them in the loop, and not risking duplication (after all the mod artist is under contract) @the person that suggested I hastily cried 'thief', in my defense I did provide a clarification later. @the person that mention 'fair use' only applies to me, not to a third party given it for the purpose of modification sadly, this isn't the legal case. Caveat = IF and only if the purpose is modification for my use. legally it's allowing someone access to my owned works for the purpose of modification for my Continued use, if they keep copies, they are breaking the law, not I. also in the OP's example, it doesn't apply since the user of the service is not giving away copies, the service provider is actually taking them through manipulation of the client software @comments regarding DCMA. while DCMA *TECHNICALLY* forbids owners from breaking protections, fair use says I can do it to modify &/or backup said digital media, and would thus be worthless to prosecute... this is the biggest reason that piracy still exists despite it, because they have to prove something past fair use to apply DCMA to ownership or creation of methods, to break the protections so my dvd ripper is ok, as long as I don't use it for piracy, if they can prove piracy, I'm in trouble. hence I steer clear of piracy issues.
_____________________
| | . "Cat-Like Typing Detected" | . This post may contain errors in logic, spelling, and | . grammar known to the SL populace to cause confusion | | - Please Use PHP tags when posting scripts/code, Thanks. | - Can't See PHP or URL Tags Correctly? Check Out This Link... | - 
|
|
Bree Giffen
♥♣♦♠ Furrtune Hunter ♠♦♣♥
Join date: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 2,715
|
11-11-2007 22:29
Hey guys can you all give me your stuff? Full mods please. I *promise* I won't give it out again or sell it or sink your business. Come on. You can trust me.
|
|
Lear Cale
wordy bugger
Join date: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 3,569
|
11-12-2007 04:55
What's your point, Bree? That Copybot shouldn't be possible? We all agree on that.
Jessee, DMCA is the Digital Millenium Copyrights Act. Sorry that I transposed the letters earlier.
It "criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself".
|
|
Sae Luan
Hardcore 4the Headstrong
Join date: 6 Feb 2006
Posts: 841
|
11-12-2007 08:12
From: Lear Cale Please stop assuming that all content creators are in favor of all aspects of DCMA and draconian intellectual property laws that take rights from consumers and create brand new rights for digital media.
The point was to stop piracy. The fact that DCMA went WAY overboard is proven by the sense of entitlement you seem to fell you deserve have over all use of your art.
In point of fact you DO have that right, but not ethically or morally, simply because of a rather one-sided law, DCMA.
I'm against piracy. I do not believe that an artist deserves full control over every copy of their art, to prevent it from any further modification.
I AM A CONTENT CREATOR. I DISAGREE WITH YOU. STOP ASSUMING YOU SPEAK FOR ALL CONTENT CREATORS.
Do I need to repeat that again? I don't think he was assuming anything honestly, you are overreacting and really just asking to spark a debate. I agree with Jesse, this thread has gotten to the point where I don't even care to post in it anymore. I'm pretty sure both Jesse and I feel about the same way on this matter, it's not so much about it being illegal or not, but it is wrong if we are not going to give our permission for you to VIOLATE the TOS and take our content out of world. You're violating the TOS, 'nough said. If I find anyone doing this crap, I'm ARing them. That's my stand on the whole thing. I don't care if it's redistributed or not, it is wrong and against the TOS to take it out of world.
_____________________
Rave Nation Owner
saeluan.blogspot.com
I accept most custom work. IM in world for details.
-
|
|
Nyoko Salome
kittytailmeowmeow
Join date: 18 Jul 2005
Posts: 1,378
|
11-12-2007 09:01
From: Bree Giffen Hey guys can you all give me your stuff? Full mods please. I *promise* I won't give it out again or sell it or sink your business. Come on. You can trust me. hehe!! now -that's- cheeky. but believe it or not, i get im'ed basically this message at least once a month. once after replying 'no', the reply i got was 'you just email me the texture, honey...' lol, reminded me of an old american sexist joke about 'what if we ever get a woman president...' (in low old-russian accent) 'mrs. president you are very beautiful...' 'oh ummm... well i guess i can show you some of the missles...' p.s. chip did a very good reminder of what 'fair use' actually stands for.
_____________________
 Nyoko's Bodyoils @ Nyoko's Wears http://slurl.com/secondlife/Centaur/126/251/734/ http://home.comcast.net/~nyoko.salome2/nyokosWears/index.html "i don't spend nearly enough time on the holodeck. i should go there more often and relax." - deanna troi
|
|
Sae Luan
Hardcore 4the Headstrong
Join date: 6 Feb 2006
Posts: 841
|
11-12-2007 09:05
From: Nyoko Salome hehe!! now -that's- cheeky. but believe it or not, i basically get im'ed this at least once a month. once after replying 'no', the reply i got was 'you just email me the texture, honey...' reminded me of an old american sexist joke about 'what if we ever get a woman president...' (in low old-russian accent) 'mrs. president you are very beautiful...' 'oh ummm... well i guess i can show you some of the missles...' Don't you love it when people pretend they know you're an idiot? People crack me up.
_____________________
Rave Nation Owner
saeluan.blogspot.com
I accept most custom work. IM in world for details.
-
|
|
Arsenic Soyinka
Registered User
Join date: 1 Dec 2005
Posts: 168
|
11-12-2007 12:51
.
on a side note ...
if i unwittingly bought an unmodifiable skin for $10us,
that had so much shading around the face, neck and chest,
that it looked more like dirt and in need of a bath,
and also had those streaking white highlites runnning down my legs,
like dripping bodylotion or caked-on deoderant ...
i would care less about violating the creator's artistic sense of ethics and copyrights ...
cos id do anything i could to cover up all that goo ...
often times products are not accurately represented in Ad Photos ...
the photo can be lighter, darker, less contrasty, or a different color
than the acutal product.
not everyone provides demos to check out the product
i wonder, would Disney sue if Minnie Mouse ever showed up
wearing hardware, weapons and Neko Ears?
.
|
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
11-12-2007 13:02
Arsenic, the right thing to do would be to ask the seller for a refund if you weren't happy with it. The vast majority would be willing to do that for you. If they have a posted no returns policy and no demo, don't buy there. Not liking a product is not justification for breaking the law. 99.99% of skin makers do offer demo versions.
_____________________
My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
|
Arsenic Soyinka
Registered User
Join date: 1 Dec 2005
Posts: 168
|
11-12-2007 13:11
.
i completely agree with you Chip ...
however, some vendors are not so co-operative,
in spite of various or, small misrepresentations
i for one am a cautious buyer ...
and i also acknowledge the kindness of vendors
who demonstrate fair business practices ...
.
|
|
Ordinal Malaprop
really very ordinary
Join date: 9 Sep 2005
Posts: 4,607
|
11-12-2007 13:22
From: Sae Luan I'm pretty sure both Jesse and I feel about the same way on this matter, it's not so much about it being illegal or not, but it is wrong if we are not going to give our permission for you to VIOLATE the TOS and take our content out of world. You're violating the TOS, 'nough said. If I find anyone doing this crap, I'm ARing them. That's my stand on the whole thing. I don't care if it's redistributed or not, it is wrong and against the TOS to take it out of world. It isn't your decision though. This is the whole problem here and why, I'm afraid, many of the responses on this thread are irrelevant. Ripping a skin is trivial if you are prepared to put any real effort into it. It is practically impossible to check the ownership of an uploaded skin, unless you happen to notice that somebody is wearing a skin you designed but also has tattoos on it that you didn't put there, and even then just a single AR would be a long drawn-out process - it's hard enough when someone is blatantly reselling a ripped skin unmodified. Most people are either unable or unwilling to rip a skin, even if they want it. They respect the idea of creator "ownership". The market is fairly safe because of that. On the other hand, the amount that you can persuade someone that they're not allowed to have tattoos on top of a skin they bought fair and square is limited. You could elaborate on the fact that them allowing it means that the tattooer concerned would then be able to resell the skin as well, but unless you can show them that that _does_ actually happen with that tattooer, they will probably just say "well they're not reselling, are they, nobody's being hurt". The market for this service is not going to go away. People buy skins and they want to be able to add bits to them, whether it is makeup, tattoos or whatever. The ideal solution would clearly be to have extra layers, but that shows no sign of happening. In the meantime, if you are a skin creator, what are you going to do about it? You can't _stop_ it and there's a limited amount that you can persuade people that they _shouldn't_ do it ethically speaking; they feel, not without justification in my opinion, that they should be entitled to change to their liking something which they have paid good money for. And these may well be perfectly decent customers, who have no intention of pirating anything and would report anyone who did.
_____________________
http://ordinalmalaprop.com/forum/ - visit Ordinal's Scripting Colloquium for scripting discussion with actual working BBCode!
http://ordinalmalaprop.com/engine/ - An Engine Fit For My Proceeding, my Aethernet Journal
http://www.flickr.com/groups/slgriefbuild/ - Second Life Griefbuild Digest, pictures of horrible ad griefing and land spam, and the naming of names
|
|
Arsenic Soyinka
Registered User
Join date: 1 Dec 2005
Posts: 168
|
11-12-2007 15:37
. From: Ordinal Malaprop ... that (people) not allowed to have tattoos on top of a skin they bought fair and square ... they (cant) add bits to them, whether it is makeup, tattoos or whatever. why dont skinmakers simply go one step further ... skinmakers could declare ... that one cant wear any clothing that would cover any part of, or all of their skin, because that too infringes on the artistic integrity of the skin ... or they could say, you can only wear specific style and type of clothing on their skin ... or that their skin cannot by covered up by more than 50% of clothing and accessories after all what is the difference between tattoos, makeup, hair, and clothing? and what about jewelry, belts, weapons, cloaks and masks? they all cover up part, if not all of the skin in their opinion, dont those items also alter the artistic integrity of skin? ... skinmakers could have the "right" to say that they do skinmakers for that matter, could require buyers to sign a contract pertaining to limited use of their skin ... they could limit the usage of their skins to only fashionable clothing, excluding urban, gor, neko, goth, vampire, or slutty styles they could also form monopolies with specific clothing designers they could also restrict the kinds of objects worn with their skin ... such as no weapons, no penises and no dildos ... they could also demand that one cannot participate in various activities wearing their skins, such as sex, profanity, certain types dancing or griefing there is no end to the kinds of restrictions and conditions skinmakers can make (if they are allowed to) ... just like God, skinmakers could control the type skin someone is born with, even on Second Life... skinmakers could even brand or tattoo their own skins with their special mark of trademark and copyright as well ... and to think? ... of the places on a skin they could tattoo their trademarks ... would they even place it on the forehead? and further, why dont these skinmakers unite and form a union or guild? ... they could organize and form an agenda and charter of common goals and purposes... they could have mass demonstrations on Second Life, and in San Francisco to inform the public and Linden Labs ... the could move on Washington to demand their rights be heard and recognized as an oppressed artistic minority, who are being taken advantage of --- copied - plagiarized - defaced - damaged - pillaged, and attacked artistically, morally and unethically, destroying their authenticity they could go on Dr. Phil and Oprah to explain their agendas and positions ... even go on strike, by suspending all sales of skins to residents on Second Life ... as i see it, these skinmakers who seem to be only complaining about tattoos, considering the amount of money they make on a skin + extra fees for makeup, have little to gripe about, or have no vision at all ... ^^ . |
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
11-12-2007 15:52
From: Arsenic Soyinka why dont skinmakers simply go one step further ...
skinmakers could declare ...
that one cant wear any clothing that would cover any part of,
or all of their skin, because that too infringes on the
artistic integrity of the skin ...
or they could say, you can only wear specific style and type
of clothing on their skin ... or that their skin cannot by covered up
by more than 50% of clothing and accessories Now you're just being silly. Skin makers are not the bad guys here. We don't want to limit the way people can use what they bought. We just don't want our raw textures sitting in people's inventories, stripped of their permissions and attributions. Once something like that leaks out into the general population that product is history. Ask Starley Thereian whose excellent and popular Malibu skin is in just about every freebie pack on the grid now. Think she can still sell it? Think a DMCA takedown notice can remedy the situation? Not a chance. She'll never earn another dime from the work she put into it. It's absolutely NOT about skin makers caring what tattoos makeup or anything else people want to use with their skin. Making skin designers out to be some kind of prima donnas isn't accurate or fair. The more people think that we're hyper-sensitive control freaks the easier it is for them to justify doing things that put our work and livelihoods at risk. It isn't the fault of skin makers that LL's avatar system is so inflexible, and it isn't a valid justification for breaking the law and having no respect for people who work very hard for the money they earn, which for most of us is less than we could make spending the same amount of time flipping burgers. Very few skin makers make a lot of money. Most just cover their tier and earn a little extra.
_____________________
My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
|
Nyoko Salome
kittytailmeowmeow
Join date: 18 Jul 2005
Posts: 1,378
|
11-12-2007 16:02
From: Arsenic Soyinka .
why dont skinmakers simply go one step further ...
skinmakers could declare ...
that one cant wear any clothing that would cover any part of,
or all of their skin, because that too infringes on the
artistic integrity of the skin ...
or they could say, you can only wear specific style and type
of clothing on their skin ... or that their skin cannot by covered up
by more than 50% of clothing and accessories
after all what is the difference between tattoos, makeup, hair, and clothing?
and what about jewelry, belts, weapons, cloaks and masks?
they all cover up part, if not all of the skin
in their opinion, dont those items also alter the artistic integrity of skin? ...
skinmakers could have the "right" to say that they do
skinmakers for that matter, could require buyers to sign a contract
pertaining to limited use of their skin ...
they could limit the usage of their skins to only fashionable clothing,
excluding urban, gor, neko, goth, vampire, or slutty styles
they could also form monopolies with specific clothing designers
they could also restrict the kinds of objects worn with their skin ...
such as no weapons, no penises and no dildos ...
they could also demand that one cannot participate in various activities
wearing their skins, such as sex, profanity, certain types dancing or griefing
there is no end to the kinds of restrictions and conditions skinmakers can make
(if they are allowed to) ...
just like God, skinmakers could control the type skin someone is born with,
even on Second Life...
skinmakers could even brand or tattoo their own skins
with their special mark of trademark and copyright as well ...
and to think? ... of the places on a skin they could tattoo their trademarks ...
would they even place it on the forehead?
and further, why dont these skinmakers unite and form a union or guild? ...
they could organize and form an agenda and charter of common goals and purposes...
they could have mass demonstrations on Second Life, and in San Francisco
to inform the public and Linden Labs ...
the could move on Washington to demand their rights be heard
and recognized as an oppressed artistic minority,
who are being taken advantage of ---
copied - plagiarized - defaced - damaged - pillaged,
and attacked artistically, morally and unethically, destroying their authenticity
they could go on Dr. Phil and Oprah to explain their agendas and positions ...
even go on strike, by suspending all sales of skins to residents on Second Life ...
as i see it, these skinmakers who seem to be only complaining about tattoos,
considering the amount of money they make on a skin + extra fees for makeup,
have little to gripe about, or have no vision at all ... ^^
. WOW. well, they -could-, but they -wouldn't.- (or/and if they -did,- they'd be facing 'tea party' flashbacks., maybe not entirely in their favor.  that is 'basic customer backlash.' again... the prob is just certain folks who may be in the 'skin modification business'... but the basic -problem- is the uncertainty of copying/selling for profit possibilities. i couldn't care if someone modifies their own 'skin'. the problem is that, instrinsically, that calls into question 'copying' factors.
_____________________
Nyoko's Bodyoils @ Nyoko's Wears http://slurl.com/secondlife/Centaur/126/251/734/ http://home.comcast.net/~nyoko.salome2/nyokosWears/index.html "i don't spend nearly enough time on the holodeck. i should go there more often and relax." - deanna troi
|
|
Sae Luan
Hardcore 4the Headstrong
Join date: 6 Feb 2006
Posts: 841
|
11-12-2007 16:56
I looked into this a bit today, just to see what it was all about. I found the program that people have carelessly mentioned in this thread. For those of you that do not realize this, it goes a huge step farther than just nabbing one skin and tattoo file if you are using the program I found. It nabs every single texture that Second Life downloads while you are in world. So, if I wanna go to a texture store and nab all teh textures up, totally easy...I also get tons of other textures that I see while I'm in the sim as well, as I said, EVERY texture you download and see while in SL is downloaded into a folder on your computer. I'm not sure if this is the only program out there, but this is highly highly wrong if you are using it.  And no, I didn't download it and use it to see if it worked, you can find the info easily by searching.
_____________________
Rave Nation Owner
saeluan.blogspot.com
I accept most custom work. IM in world for details.
-
|
|
Sae Luan
Hardcore 4the Headstrong
Join date: 6 Feb 2006
Posts: 841
|
11-12-2007 17:00
From: Arsenic Soyinka .
why dont skinmakers simply go one step further ...
skinmakers could declare ...
that one cant wear any clothing that would cover any part of,
or all of their skin, because that too infringes on the
artistic integrity of the skin ...
or they could say, you can only wear specific style and type
of clothing on their skin ... or that their skin cannot by covered up
by more than 50% of clothing and accessories
after all what is the difference between tattoos, makeup, hair, and clothing?
and what about jewelry, belts, weapons, cloaks and masks?
they all cover up part, if not all of the skin
in their opinion, dont those items also alter the artistic integrity of skin? ...
skinmakers could have the "right" to say that they do
skinmakers for that matter, could require buyers to sign a contract
pertaining to limited use of their skin ...
they could limit the usage of their skins to only fashionable clothing,
excluding urban, gor, neko, goth, vampire, or slutty styles
they could also form monopolies with specific clothing designers
they could also restrict the kinds of objects worn with their skin ...
such as no weapons, no penises and no dildos ...
they could also demand that one cannot participate in various activities
wearing their skins, such as sex, profanity, certain types dancing or griefing
there is no end to the kinds of restrictions and conditions skinmakers can make
(if they are allowed to) ...
just like God, skinmakers could control the type skin someone is born with,
even on Second Life...
skinmakers could even brand or tattoo their own skins
with their special mark of trademark and copyright as well ...
and to think? ... of the places on a skin they could tattoo their trademarks ...
would they even place it on the forehead?
and further, why dont these skinmakers unite and form a union or guild? ...
they could organize and form an agenda and charter of common goals and purposes...
they could have mass demonstrations on Second Life, and in San Francisco
to inform the public and Linden Labs ...
the could move on Washington to demand their rights be heard
and recognized as an oppressed artistic minority,
who are being taken advantage of ---
copied - plagiarized - defaced - damaged - pillaged,
and attacked artistically, morally and unethically, destroying their authenticity
they could go on Dr. Phil and Oprah to explain their agendas and positions ...
even go on strike, by suspending all sales of skins to residents on Second Life ...
as i see it, these skinmakers who seem to be only complaining about tattoos,
considering the amount of money they make on a skin + extra fees for makeup,
have little to gripe about, or have no vision at all ... ^^
. And you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Skin makers aren't demons behind their computers, ok, they just don't want other people accessing what they don't have the right to access.
_____________________
Rave Nation Owner
saeluan.blogspot.com
I accept most custom work. IM in world for details.
-
|
|
Reitsuki Kojima
Witchhunter
Join date: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,328
|
11-12-2007 17:38
From: Sae Luan I looked into this a bit today, just to see what it was all about. I found the program that people have carelessly mentioned in this thread. "Carelessly" nothing. What's the point in tiptoeing around a program that a single poorly worded Google search could turn up, which has been discussed on this forum and others ad nauseas, and isn't even inherently a "bad" tool? Sorry, I don't hold with Chip that not mentioning the name does anything even remotely useful. From: Sae Luan And no, I didn't download it and use it to see if it worked, you can find the info easily by searching. You should have, as most of us did when the the first scare hit years ago, you might have learned that it's not quite as dire as you make it sound - while it's true that it intercepts any texture sent to the video card (hence, the name), it's not possible to run the program and still play SL... your performance is measured in seconds per frame. You can't just be running the program all the time on the off-chance you see a texture you like. But as for ripping textures from a texture store? Pffffft. Not even on the radar in terms of worrisome. LL have provided a way to steal any texture that's visible in-world and not a clothing or particle texture for ages now. It's been ARed more times than I can count just by myself, and I know a ton of other people. It's still there. It takes 2 clicks of the mouse to turn it on.
_____________________
I am myself indifferent honest; but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me: I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offenses at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in. What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves, all; believe none of us.
|
|
Arsenic Soyinka
Registered User
Join date: 1 Dec 2005
Posts: 168
|
11-12-2007 17:41
. well obviously there multiple layers to this discussion, and that a major objection exists and hinges on whether adding a tattoo to a skin infringes on artistic rights and integrity, is what is silly (not my comments which only serves to characterize the absurdity of evangelizing for the protection of skins from tattoos or anything else) ... tattoos just dont seem to fall into that category regarding skins, no matter how exhalted one is by their painstaking work, if not also affronted by the notion of having it covered up however ... when it does come to the copying factors and rights of access, it does work both ways ... such as outright copying, plagiarizm and theft, which is altogether a differ matter being copied is a risk one has to take in any field of endeavor ... whether youre in business or not ... whether youre in real life ... or on second life (which is real life anyway) ... i own about 150 outfits ... ive made about 25 of them ... one time when i was shopping at a store which was own by the designer who also owned the sim ... i saw one of the first things i ever made on SL, being sold at this store ... there were slight differences, but it was my original creation and outfit nevertheless when i confronted the designer about it, i was talked down to in a PrimaDonnish manner, until i put on my outfit, and also showed the designer my original art work for my oufit, which i made when i was 16 years old when i was on blaxxun community ... well ... needless to say the attitude changed, and my creation disappeared instantly, in spite of the fact i even politely offered that my outift could continue to be sold if i was given credit for it ... but no such luck! .... and no further "backlash" from me! quite frankly ... it is ironic reading this thread, who in fact are the ones demonising themselves ... . |
|
Nyoko Salome
kittytailmeowmeow
Join date: 18 Jul 2005
Posts: 1,378
|
11-12-2007 17:57
From: Reitsuki Kojima "Carelessly" nothing. What's the point in tiptoeing around a program that a single poorly worded Google search could turn up, which has been discussed on this forum and others ad nauseas, and isn't even inherently a "bad" tool?
Sorry, I don't hold with Chip that not mentioning the name does anything even remotely useful. lol )) well even o'reilly publishing had this hack in their 'hold' bin for entries into an sl-related book... is it still there, i wonder?? (haven't looked recently) ... but (gee pardon me if i will put a 'face' upon the facts for my reality, as i described a page or two ago... copying textures for any reason is a risk. i know your world seems 'small' - so does mine. but it -isn't,- far beyond what you know or can anticipate. and 'what is out of your control' is currently (and maybe even forever, beyond additional features that would nullify any need :\ ) ... well, uncontrollable. what you find, you can prosecute. what you can't, you can't. (yeeesshhhh, having 'ashcroft' flashbacks) try making something kewl - from scratch, just for yourself and your friends, first off, then try selling it to strangers, then finding you have something very very kewl... then see how you feel about it all. churchill i guess said something like, 'a person not liberal at twenty has no heart; a person not conservative at forty has no brain.' maybe that is so... p.s. btw, if you cannot afford what you want... DO NOT BUY IT!! if it does not offer you all that you want, return it for a refund (if it is transferable). do not try to 'con' the creator into a '2-for-1' sale if there is none offered beforehand. 'con artists' are rarely very cunning, neither artistic.
_____________________
Nyoko's Bodyoils @ Nyoko's Wears http://slurl.com/secondlife/Centaur/126/251/734/ http://home.comcast.net/~nyoko.salome2/nyokosWears/index.html "i don't spend nearly enough time on the holodeck. i should go there more often and relax." - deanna troi
|