Points of interest in the new Terms of Service

Here is my main beef with this:
If LL is not going to be held responsible for the content of our inventories, we need a way to back them up ourselves. I know we can copy-n-paste scripts to notepad so that is a non issue. I know sound files and texture files we create and upload we still have main control of but what about the object itself? What about the creation that took me a week to perfect the prim size, shape and cut to get it to look right? Other than unlinking it, jotting down all info on each of the 29-30 prims such as size,shape,rotation and X,Y,Z locations as relative to the root, there needs to be an easier way for us to back these objects up in the case of an incident. There has also got to be a way to backup objects that were bought from another creator as well and still protect the copyright of said objects.

Here is an idea on this that could also add another Money Sink:
LL can offer an on-site backup service for your inventory, the service can be payable in Lindens. Perhaps add a setup fee and a weekly/monthly subscription fee. This service would use any backup medium available ie DVDR,Tape,NAS,SAS or anything else out there. Add a separate TOS for the data backup/restore service and setup procedures for customer restore requests and it may end up being a good thing and a value added service to add the feel of a true "development platform". I mean, what developer out there who is worth their salt would decide to use AutoCAD for developing a multi-million device but not have any way to back up the data? I have seen the hard drive crashes, I have seen the click of death in my time and I know, even the best data recovery services can't get it all.

Also regarding the currency thing:
As long as there exists a way to perform an exchange of one currency type to another then it is a real currency. The Linden is a Fiat currency just like the USD. The Linden is a real currency like the Euro. The Euro is a currency that is only good in the European countries that have adopted it just like the Linden is a currency that is only good in SL. So in order to remove any type of confusion that the Linden is either real or not then they must stop the ability to exchange from the Linden to USD and visa-versa. And honsetly, the best way to perform this is just to keep giving all residents a ton of Lindens just because, each day give us 1,000,000 Lindens to cause a major devaluation and let the Linden crash and not be a viable currency anymore. Because as long as it is called a currency and because it can be exchanged then it is in fact a real currency that is in need of protection for the residents. Also, since LL can perform moves to cause flutuations in the currency, they are now like the Federal Reserve which pretty much dictates how the USD moves. All SL is missing are S&Ls and credit unions. With all that stated, I think that LL needs to reshape the model it is basing the Linden on, it works too closely to the USD as far as how it is printed and controlled by LL, heck we don't even need an in-world representation of the Linden anymore as it is even falling in line with other currencies, using the credit-electronic method as opposed to using cash-in hand.

There is already a mini-discussion going on about this.

Like I always say: it's a GAME. Remember that and all is fine. If you can make a little money on the side, power to ya. The high rollers that make a lot of money in this GAME should realize that it's a risky investment.

SL is not a game.

tyty, I did not see that one yet

It's a great system. You pay Linden Lab to create their product. If you spend enough time and resources at it, you might get a little something back. The new ToS merely acknowledges an existing condition, for the purposes of corporate protection.

With RL advertising coming to SL, and corporations like Wells Fargo staking out territory on or off the main grid and hiring "firms" like Bedazzle to create content, I wonder if the new ToS also reflects a shift in LL priorities - less reliance on individual consumer content creation, and more reliance on corporate content with higher profit potential.

The issue isn't a technical one. LL can't be held *LEGALLY* responsible, because they don't want to have to spend money defending themselves in court all the time.

Even if LL gave you a way to back up your inventory locally, there is no way to prevent one of their bugs from wiping it out locally! It doesn't matter where the data is, LL software has to be able to read and write it, and that code could easily screw up just as easily if the data was on your hard drive as theirs. (I do agree with you that we should be able to back up our inventories locally, but for me it doesn't have anything to do with the TOS. It just seems logical.)

If the TOS read like people seem to want it to -- that LL is legally accountable to users for the safety of their data -- then they would not be able to afford to do anything at all to the software. The only way to make sure programmers don't make any mistakes is to prevent them from doing any modifications at all.

Have you ever read the license agreement for Microsoft Windows? Go to microsoft.com and look up the license agreement for Windows XP Professional. According to the license agreement for Microsoft Windows, if you lose all your data because of bugs in Windows or even negligence on Microsoft's part, then Microsoft's liability is limited to the amount you paid for Microsoft Windows, or $5, whichever is higher. (Legally, the actual effect of this is limited, because you can't eliminate liability for negligence with a mere contract provision.)

I would challenge anyone to find a license agreement where somebody guarantees the safety of data. There is no software or online service agreement that doesn't limit all liability of all sorts to the amount paid for the software.

As for intellectual property rights, LL has a problem there too, because frivolous lawsuits could kill the company. If they acknowledge proprietary intellectual property rights in data that they hold, that creates indirect liabilities that they can't afford to carry.

I think the TOS wording is a matter of necessity. It does create a problem, because it says, in effect:

1. You don't have any rights at all. There are no rights that are not excluded by this provision.

2. You retain all rights not excluded by provision 1.

3. If you don't like it, go away.

So, if you don't like it, go away.

Buster

I agree with the main points that LL is not responsible for data loss, but Microsoft also allows you to make a backup copy of said data in a form that is accessable by you for your recovery needs. Hence the restore CD that ships with many systems or that you can request with a system purchase. That is what I was trying to get at, Microsoft doesn't take resposibility for data loss on your computer which leads to a loss of data but they do allow you the ability to backup that data along with the O/S, they once even provided a generic interface for it called MS Backup (I think they still provide something, I just use DVDRs now so I haven't looked). This seems to be a case where you buy Windows (tm) and have Office (tm) installed and can perform work but cannot save your work to a backup medium of any type such as a floppy or CDRW. I just boils down to one of my main points, if LL is going to push SL as a high end Dev platform, they should get with the program and allow devs to somehow backup their stuff. Imagine a sytematic hard drive crash on the servers that houses the Wells Fargo data, how would Wells Fargo like it if their data was gone, the RL money they spent on the servers, spent to pay the project teams who developed the land for them, how would they react if LL told them that hey, it can happen and we are not responsible for your data, tough luck? How would that go over with such a large and powerful banking institution and how the mistrust could be spread through RL? They may not be able to slander LL but they could issue a press statement that said they were pulling out of the SL due to deficiencies on the technical side which caused data loss.

Sorry if I ranted too long, it seems we are arguing the same points but from a different perspective.

No doubt they have a side agreement with Wells Fargo. Even so, the best they could say is, in effect, "we'll use our best efforts to make sure nothing bad happens". Which is quite different from "we promise nothing bad will happen".

I think it is in the best interest of residents that LL isn't sued out of existence because one of their programmers screwed up or because a server failed or something, and some resident loses data. Especially given how often that happens. You can't have it both ways. Either LL flails away and makes both improvements and mistakes, or they stop all activity and concentrate on making sure nobody ever loses anything.

Of course, we all wish LL was more systematic, maybe even more competent. But they are what they are. I'm taking my chances.

Buster

Actually if you have accepted the new TOS you have acknowleged it is not a game. I'm going to star reporting everyone who claims it is lol

I agree Buster I just wanted to vent my frustration out on all software companies that have the no gurantee on the software they make as to no liability with data loss. In this world with the use of computers being so extensive, perhaps Enron would have been better off switching focus to software, selling such software to themselves and then destroying the data then the argument of the EULA for their software to not hold them liable for data loss on all data would have saved them a lot of money on paper shredders. It is just that when Financial institutions, Government insitutions and many commercial institutions are using some software package to perform job functions, it frustrates me to know that they could lose that data at any moment and the next thing you know, the BMV thinks I am a 160 year old woman who is dead. To know that these companies have no true assurance of the software manufacturer that it will work right just gets me a little nervouse, especially when my bank uses software extensively. (hmm, I seem to be short a few k in the bank....and Buster seemed to have gotten a raise of a few k....) I beleive that in the long run, the manufacturers of software should be held accountable if their software fails, just like a car manufacturer is held responsible when a model has catastrophic failure in the steering assemblies and causes the death of the occupants of that vehicle. And a catastrophic software failure that causes the loss of life is on it's way, with the new surgical procedures being performed using software guided tools and cameras "sorry I removed your heart, the computer told me it was your spleen. But you can't sue the software company because they have it in their EULA." I am just seeing this as an interesting update and you all have provided good debate and info on it I love these forums while I am work..... errr never mind......

I don't know how. Could you provide me a link to check this?

coco

anyone notice this in an email sent out recently to basic accounts?



how blatant is that?

There appears to be a concerted push to up the subscriber count. Window dressing. I have to wonder if there's a capital reason. Burn expressed per subscriber maybe, or credit line based on subscriber counts.

They are, so to speak, putting a dress on the pig.

Buster

i was referring to the fact that they're openly stating "L$ 500/week = US $8.00 value"

That does seem rather blatant. I agree.

I was gonna say, well, it's true, in the loose sense of value, but wait a minute - if Lindens are $3.50 per 1000, how can 500 of them be worth $8?

Unless that value is referring to some other comparison?

coco

L$500/week => L$500 * 52 / 12 => L$2166/month

...which is about equivalent to US$8 at an exchange rate of US$3.69 / L$1000. The figure is dated, but in the right ballpark.

oh yeah, lol.

coco