Death from above?

Cienna, we're debating an interesting point.

However, I think the difference lies in that I feel there is a debate here and you don't - you have already provided us with a 'legal opinion' on the issue that is right and any fool who believes otherwise is that - just a fool.

I'd rather be a bit more humble and agree with people like the EFF who says things like:



http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_06.php#003748, or



http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/streamcast.php

or

Consumer Electronics Association President and CEO Gary Shapiro:



http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/cea.php

None of which deals with the actual law. Hell, those quotes are spin, nothing more. I know two of those folks and the third is a joke.

As for this:



There isn't a court in this country that would prosecute someone for receiving $L for an infringing item. There isn't a court in this country that would consider receipt of $L for anything in the metaverse an actual 'sale'.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with a legal concept called 'standing' before you post inane crap like this, people don't deserve to be mislead and misinformed and you really should do your homework if you actually care about more than stirring up forum drama.

Even the quotes you have make the distinction between suing someone and winning... note they don't actually say there will be more WINS against, merely that there will be more suits. Even that is nothing new, there is always a spate of precedent refining rulings following a SC decision. Or even a appeal.

Let's just say you don't know what the hell you're talking about and leave it at that.

You don't know that.

I do know that the US will prosecute based on equivalents though. Neither of us know if the US courts would consider L$ to be an equivalent.

However, the fact that SL quotes them as US$ currency transactions and that GOM exists seems to me a pretty good case that L$ is an equivalent.

I'd be interested in hearing what your logic is that the courts would not view L$ as having any value.

This is pretty much what I'm saying. I never said it was new. I merely said it was probably going to have an impact on how SL does things going forward.

Sounds like we're agreeing here but for some reason we're trying to posture in a way that sounds like we're disagreeing.

First -- what the heck is up with you and the double replies? You trying to boost your post count or something?

Second -- anyone with ANY experience in researching case law can tell you very quickly and very easily that no one will prosecute under the circumstances you set forth. That you don't know this is obvious, but irrelevent. Just because you think there is a clear cut equivilant doesn't mean the court/law sees it that way. Frankly, anyone with any level of legal experience will tell you this is the case. (Actually, they will run themselves silly coming up with arguments for and against, because that's how their trained and one can only break that training with a hella effort. -chuckle-)

Third -- It is not a question of logic, but of law. Obviously you do not get that the two are not the same. -bigger grin-

Finally, this:



Is the scarecrowing I'm talking about... LL and SL doesn't have to change a thing at this time or even in the near future unless the paranoia here pushes them into reactionary methods. I'd think LL would more afraid of some paying player going out of their way to get them in the gutter out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness than that any company would show up complaining.

Face it -- LL is low on the IP/Infringement radar. Unless someone goes out of their way to make trouble with/for them, it isn't looking for them.

As for 'posturing', you seem to have the need to be right on this. You're not. You're not right about $L being considered an equivilant form of $USD, you're not right that the mere presence of a potentially infringing item equals liability for LL, and you're not right about the inability to define/demonstrate that courts will not consider the exchange of $L for a potentially infringing avatar as 'standing' for loss.

Do I care that you're not right? Not really. But posts like this by folks like you distract and mislead and contribute to the F.U.D. around things like this and that bugs me because there's enough ignorance in the world without people adding to it out of a need to look like they know something.

I think that LL is off the radar right now because its so small, but the bigger it gets the more likely this is to become an issue for some copyright holders. Because L$ are convertible to R$, it is possible to make RL$ off copyrighted works in SL, which in the long run has to make this a bigger issue than it would be otherwise.

I would expect that consumer brands like Budweiser would encourage the so-called "infringement" represented by the Budweiser jacket. Exposure! Brand recognition! They love it. They sell beer, not Budweiser logos, so unless the graphics are used to disparage them or something, they probably won’t object.

Where the art IS the product, however, the story will be different. Movie studios, Disney, networks, artistists and art galleries, etc.

Uploading or creating infringing works is a TOS violation, so when LL is informed of a violation by a copyright holder, I would expect them to dish out warnings to offenders, and suspensions for repeat offenders. Over time I think it will become common knowledge what kinds of things to avoid. Anyone knowingly uploading copyrighted works, knowing that the copyright holder would object, is a RL criminal.

Buster

Very true.



Eventually, yes. But not at the moment. First there has to be a precedent set for considering $L (or virtual currencies) as $RL. The simple fact that you can convert one to the other itself isn't enough.

Then there has to be a precedent that any $L in the possession of someone who has traded or sold $L for $RL may be considered a $L 'sold' in real world terms.

Then there has to be a precedent that selling something in a virtual world is considered a binding 'contract' in the real world.

Then there has to be a precedent that virtual world representations can or do cause damage to their real world counterparts.

The list goes on... but you can tell from this how far off any real issue is, can't you?



True. Very true.

To continue the above line of thought - one of the reasons there are no precedents in US Law for this is because the majority of the gaming industry is fighting tooth and claw to keep any question relative to their possibly being liable for outages, their bugs eating your items, or having to compensate you for downtime OUT OF THE COURTROOM.

You see, the knife cuts both ways. If $L = $RL, then LL property = Real World Value.

Most EULAs call for mandatory arbitration under California for precisely this reason. The result gives them a win without precedent when they win, and a loss without precedent when they lose.

Think about that a moment and understand that the lobby to keep virtual property from having real world value is considerable and all of it goes counter to the $L = $RL that many here take for granted.

At this time, NO virtual currency has real world value in the courts or under law for the customer/player because it is all considered the IP of the game company. If they permit you to sell and trade it, that doesn't at all negate their IP rights or imbue you with any ownership rights.



Precisely. Failure to act prior to notification of infringement is not, of itself, make them liable. Failing to act subsqeuent to notification however, is.

I see why Cienna didn't link this directly. I haven't even gotten to the entier thread and I am debating. Sorry Blaze lol you are just the the first target and as a discalimer this does not concern the over all correctness of the post.

However i can say, with some experience, that the number may be closer to 90% of disagreements being settled out of court. However, again I can say from some experience that what brings a case to the settlement table is more about what can be proven than what is uncertain. In law generally a lot of hard work goes inot establishing the facts of what happened before it comes time to settle, and untilmately the settlment is a business decision based on what can be proven. In general when a civil case goes to trial its because one of the attorneys has seriously misvalued his case, or someone has something to prove (and its not about the case). Most clinets will want a substanial amount of "proof" before they write a settlement check.

Yeah yeah this will like be a double post. So what I'm gaming the forums as usual .

I think the marvel ruling is very germaine to this issue. In point of fact LL produces the enviroment and does not contribute significantly to content COH did much more content). Linden Labs will most likely be viewed as a service provider, and liability for how the service is used will fall directly on the user. As users we may freely infringe without LL knowing or supporting out efforts at infringing. The responsibility for knowing if we have an infringing use is on our shoulders.

the courts will recognize the inherent value of having services and entertainment like LL and will see that the problems associated with imposing liability on the users would impede and not foster the creative impulse.

Fundamentally copyright law exists not to protect a creator, but to foster creativity. To do this copyright will protect the creators interest for a period of time, but the policy underlying the law is to foster creativity.

So I would think LL is realtively safe from significant exposure to liability, and thus any one bringing a suit would leave LL out of it, absent some showing of collusion.

Individual users can still be sued however, and my guess is that any dispaly of movies that results in a profit to the user is an infringing use. If show movies for free, then you may not have problem, as it could be a private showing. Charging for the movies however could be a problem. ( we are ignoring for the moment the legal issues realting to value of the linden).

Fan art is not exactly fair use, that would depend on the purpose for which the art is intended. Parody or education would be fair uses, however painting your own version of a starwars poster and selling it on e-bay is likely to be found an infringement.

In point of fact there are many copyright infringements in SL, by users and between users.

No the real question comes up, and here is where everything gets a bit sticky, and that is damages. In general you have to be able to prove that you were damaged by the infringement to recover in a civil suit (criminal actions are very different animals). Thus many infringing uses go unpunished because there is no way to prove damages, or to prove damages worth the cost of litigation. (again disney is a beast-they will spend $50k in legal fees chasing after $.01 in damages!).

As far as all the hubub goes. In the broadest strokes organizations like the EFF are worried about the law because it may represent a significant shift in policy towards limiting access to information on the internet. The argument is the positive uses of file sharing services outweith the potential for infringement.

The language of intent is very powerful in law. Intent is diffcult to establish and must be specifically established before liability can be found. Thus the only organizations that are truly going to be on the hook are those that put on top of thier website "why pay for a song when you can download it from us." Thuse the broad applicability of such a law is reduced. I am sure the lawers at the record companies are screaming that the tools of enforcement have been emascualted by this decision.

The final point about copyright infringement litigation is that it is very much case specific, and thus it is hard to draw any general conclusions, even when precendent is clear, since as often as not the individual facts will vary significantly.

Characters cannot be copyrighted. They are trademarked. There's a big difference.

The ruling said nothing about trademark. It was specifically about copyright, so character replicas do not have anything to do with it.

Nice catch, Chosen. I completely missed that.

Wrong.

You can trademark characters, affording you more protection, but they're still copyrighted regardless.

I've just been on a day course about copyright and as see it as follows:

If you create a card with your own pens, paper in your own house, its yours, copyrighted and blah blah.

If you create a card with your own pens, paper at WORK, its actually copyrighted by your Employers.

I don't know why i needed to say that, but I just did.

Not if they don't know you're doing it on work time and work equipment for personal reasons and profit

Well this is TRUE, but legally, it's theirs.

So PFFT!

All the p2p networks let you share files legally. I write music and I can put them on p2p networks and get people to listen. If some buttpipe puts Metallica on their share, it's because the individual wants to pirate music, not because the software was designed for piracy. The ISP, the backbone carriers, the phone companies who make the lines that carry the data are no more or no less involved than the p2p software makers.

This is another corporations vs the enslaved public deal. We're all a bunch of bad guys who deserve to have their homes taken at below market value to make room for mini-malls.

SL won't be touched because it costs to much money to play here. You're all safe. If this was happening in opensource, then you'd have to worry.

WAAAAAKE UUUUP!

You do realise you make yourself look really ignorant when you do this, right?

Here that bell? School's in... listen up:

Copyright Versus Trademark

Although many people tend to regard the terms copyright and trademark as synonyms, they aren't - although they are related. Both copyright and trademark law exists to protect artists, writers, and businesses from unauthorized use of their property.

A copyright protects original expression in written and artistic works. Copyright law protects plays, films, books, software, and Web site copy.

A trademark protects names, company and product logos, slogans, color combinations, and product design and packaging. A trademark is used to identify the source of goods and services. An individual or company must use the trademark in commerce.

Note the difference: the copyright belongs to the person who created the work, while the trademark belongs to the person (or business) who creates and markets a product.

Now... with this clarified, understand that the recent Supreme Court Ruling applies ONLY TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENTS. NOT TO TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENTS.

You cannot COPYRIGHT a character. You can copyright a book containing a character, but not the character itself. You can TRADEMARK a character.

Sorry, blaze, you are just way the hell off base on this one.

The ruling set forth merely refined the difference between the p2p networks you're talking about and the companies who actively support and promote copyright infringement. Nothing more.



Actually, Disney has quite a reputation for aggressively pursuing those who use its trademarks without permission, regardless of whether or not they're losing money.

Same for Anheuser-Busch, Lucas Arts, and a few others one often sees imitations of in SL.

The only reason there is no trouble with it is because there is a growing backlash in the consumer market against companies getting "nit picky" (perception, not reality, mind you) about protecting their IP and any of the companies mentioned would take more heat and lose more support for hammering a small company like LL than is profitable in protecting their IP.

It has nothing to do with money (open source or not, that is). It has to do with picking your battles wisely and not eroding your own marketbase by looking like a bully.

With that said, don't be surprised to find stringent measures coming from LL soon with regard to copyright and trademark infringements.

Yawn.

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/characters.html

"Who he or she is, what he or she looks like, the manner of behavior and other such characteristics can all be described, in writing, by the author. As such, the character may be protected under copyright law as part of the text of that work (see discussion below). Since one of the rights of copyright is the right to make derivative works based on the work, if there is such protection, the author (or whoever is the proprietor of the rights in and to the text including the character) retains the right to make further use of that character in such derivative works."

Wrong. This is what happens when a layman tries to pretend he knows more than he does.

Newsflash, blaze -- everything you read on Google isn't verifiable truth, and law is more than one paragraph that sounds like it means you're right.

Oh well. Time to move on... not like the adamant ignorance you're sprewing here is going to chance magically.

Yawn indeed. (chuckle)

Wrong. This is what happens when a layman tries to pretend he knows more than he does.

Newsflash, blaze -- everything you read on Google isn't verifiable truth, and law is more than one paragraph that sounds like it means you're right.

Edit: The information you are quoting is highly out of context, and doesn't relate at all to a decision rendered on the matter of whether or not a physical image or likeness of a literary character is copyrightable. The case in question deals with whether or not someone who drew pictures for a book owns partial copywright to the images.

I feel sorry for the attorney whose works you're referencing, because I'm sure he never intended it to be misused and misinterpreted by you like this.

Oh well. Time to move on... not like the adamant ignorance you're sprewing here is going to chance magically.

Yawn indeed. (chuckle)

Can you maybe say that in laymans terms and explain how Grokster encourages people pirate music?




LL has always done this in the past, so when they continue to do it in the future neither you nor Blaze have "predicted" this "strategic" move.

It's all money. A bunch of poor people are ripping off corporations so that will get stopped. A handfull of rich people walking around in Donald Duck outfits isn't going get the proportional attention you tend imply is headed this way.

I know it'd be nice to live in a world where rich people and poor people had the same rules but it's plain and simple not true. If you're poor, rich people get to take you land, your culture etc... Since the dawn of time.

From what I read of the case, Grokster lost more for failing to actively pursue and eliminate infringements than anything. After a point, this is considered tacit support of the activity:



Full ruling available at: http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/04-480.pdf

The discovery submitted during the trial easily met the standard of proof for promoting it and Grokster's lack of action upon notification that infringement was occurring was ultimately what brought them a loss.

I don't believe I ever said I was an oracle. (shrug)



I never said they were in danger. I specifically said the only way they are going to take heat is probably someone who is playing the game right now decides to get self-righteous and insure they do. I think perhaps you are confusing who said what.

I will tell you this, you say 'they've always done this in the past' and there is one prediction I will make -- the intermittent and arbitrary enforcement of the past will soon give way to a much stricter and more consistantly enforced one. Partly because of these threads, but also because there are a number of people who are actively reporting violations and documentation is being created that would otherwise establish the same type of liability that Grokster fell to -- failing to enforce after notification.



Class envy is an ugly thing.

I never said you were an oracle (SHRUG). But you told us all not to be surprised when LL comes down on copyright. They always do this, they will continue to make sure we don't abuse copyright as best they can.



They have always enforced it fairly. If they see you with copyrighted material they will take issue. I'd agree with you that because of this ruling, they will certainly have to spend money to document the incidents.



Oh yes, it's the "ENVY" that is ugly not the class. Poor people ugly, rich people hawt.